set_scratch_disks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet omits the critical behavioral question: does this move existing media/previews on disk, or only redirect future writes? It also says nothing about whether the path must already exist, whether relative paths are accepted, or whether the change persists with the project.

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?

One short sentence with zero waste and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, but the terseness is partly under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

A no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with an undocumented parameter needs considerably more: what the call returns on success/failure, whether stored paths are validated, and whether the on-disk file layout changes. The description only tells the agent what is nominally reconfigured.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it does identify the single parameter as a filesystem path, which is genuine added meaning. However, it gives no format constraints (absolute vs. relative, existing directory requirement, trailing separator expectations) for a mutation that will fail silently or incorrectly on a bad path.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: it redirects the project's capture, preview, and auto-save folders to a given path. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from storage-adjacent siblings like save_project or import_media, though it never names an alternative tool or clarifies which of the three folders are affected together vs. individually.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of e.g. save_project_as or open_project, and no prerequisites stated. An agent cannot tell whether it should call this before capture, only when relocating a project, or whether it must be paired with other setup calls.

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