add_editor_library_assetsAdd images you own in your Switch library to your real Editor project. Resolve the asset ids with search_my_library or list_my_assets; Switch copies only owner-scoped durable files into the Editor workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_ids | Yes | Up to 12 owned image ids from your Switch library. | |
| project_id | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false), the description reveals that the tool copies files and only owner-scoped durable files, adding concrete behavioral details about the copy operation and its constraints.
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 concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently cover the action, a prerequisite, and a behavioral caveat, with no redundant or tangential information.
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 simplicity of an add operation and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the action, prerequisite, and a key behavioral note. It does not mention return values or error handling, but this is not critical for a straightforward add operation.
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?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that asset_ids refer to owned images and that project_id corresponds to a 'real Editor project'. It also suggests how to resolve asset_ids, which the schema does not provide, though project_id still lacks explicit detail.
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 action: adding owned images from the Switch library to an Editor project. It specifies the source (Switch library) and destination (Editor project), and distinguishes it from other add/upload tools by naming the asset source and the copy behavior.
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?
It provides a prerequisite by advising to resolve asset IDs via search_my_library or list_my_assets, and mentions a caveat about owner-scoped durable files. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools like upload_media, so the guidance is useful but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools occupy nearly identical semantic ground: apply_iphone_realism and apply_ugc both describe casual phone-shot looks, upload_media and upload_reference_asset both accept uploads, and analyze_video overlaps heavily with analyze_video_report. The many apply_* style tools are essentially one tool parameterized by style, so agents can easily select the wrong one.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern such as generate_image, list_my_videos, get_editor_run, and upscale_video. A few outliers like voice, talking_avatar_video, and video_to_prompt do not use the same verb-first convention, but they are still readable and do not create significant confusion.
At 55 tools, the surface is far beyond what is appropriate for an MCP server; many of these be collapsed or parameterized, especially the 10 apply_* style wrappers and several overlapping upload/status helpers. Even for a broad media platform, this scale forces a huge context window and makes selecting the right tool impractical.
The surface covers generation, media display, video analysis, and Editor workflows well, but there are obvious gaps in library lifecycle management: move_asset and create_folder are referenced in tool descriptions without being exposed, and there is no clean way to delete or reorganize media assets. Agents following the descriptions will try to call tools that do not exist.