set_xmp_metadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Replace' and 'full XMP packet' imply that existing XMP metadata is overwritten rather than merged, but the description omits reversibility, required project state, and response behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical adds actionable context without bloating the definition.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema or annotations, it covers purpose and packet sourcing adequately. It is still thin on prerequisites and side effects, which matter more here because structured fields do not carry behavioral context.

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 50%: nodeId is documented in the schema, while xmp is only typed as a string. The description adds meaningful constraint by saying xmp must be a full XMP packet and suggesting where to source it.

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 and resource: 'Replace the XMP metadata of a project item'. The verb 'Replace' and the pointer to get_xmp_metadata distinguish it from the read-only sibling that retrieves XMP metadata.

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?

Gives a concrete workflow: obtain and edit an XMP packet from get_xmp_metadata, then pass the full packet here. It does not state explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but the usage context is clear.

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