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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the default outcome (media bin only) vs the place:true outcome (laid at end of track), and adds an important constraint that only owner-scoped durable files are copied into the Editor workspace. It does not address duplication behavior on repeat calls, despite idempotentHint=false, which would have been valuable.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action and default behavior front-loaded, followed by the id-resolution guidance. No filler.

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 non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers destination, placement side effects, id sourcing, and a key scoping restriction. The main remaining gap is what happens on repeated calls (idempotency) and the meaning of project_id.

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?

Adds meaning beyond the schema for asset_ids by pointing to the tools that resolve them, and reinforces the place semantics with a behavioral comparison to upload_editor_media. However, project_id has no description in either the schema or the description, leaving one of three params undocumented (67% coverage).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add images you own in your Switch library to your real Editor project') and explicitly distinguishes itself from upload_editor_media by noting the library-scoped source of the assets. An agent can immediately tell this apart from upload_editor_media or place_on_editor_timeline.

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?

Names the sibling tools to use for resolving asset ids (search_my_library / list_my_assets) and clarifies the equivalent behavior to upload_editor_media when place:true. It doesn't state an explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion, but the library-vs-upload distinction is clear context.

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