item_set_length

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Set item length' but does not explain what setting the length does (e.g., trim, stretch, or change endpoints), potential side effects (e.g., affecting adjacent items), whether it is destructive, or any authorization needs. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with two sentences and a parameter list, front-loading the key action and guidance. However, it omits necessary behavioral details, making it too terse for safe usage. Still, every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain the effect on the item (e.g., trimming vs stretching), whether the length is absolute or relative, or how errors are handled. For a tool that modifies project state, this is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by naming the parameters and giving brief definitions: 'item_index: Item index' and 'length: Length in seconds.' While this clarifies the units for length, it does not specify allowed ranges, formats, or behavior for edge cases (e.g., negative length). It is minimally adequate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Set item length' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling item_apply by advising to prefer items_apply for multiple items, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Prefer items_apply for multiple', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. This helps the agent choose correctly between single and batch operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.