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

Annotations provide mutation safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it edits existing fields and media references without generating new media, but doesn't state permissions, reversibility, or partial-update behavior. With annotations covering basics, a 3 is appropriate.

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 efficient sentence with a clarifying second clause. Front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words, though could benefit from more structure for 11 parameters.

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 an 11-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain required vs optional parameters, the meaning of 'kind' enum, or return expectations. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% and there are 11 parameters, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'descriptive fields' and 'existing media references' but doesn't map to specific parameters like kind, asset_id, or the array max of 20. Significant gap for an 11-param tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Edit an owned reusable asset's descriptive fields and existing media references'), clearly distinguishing from create_world_asset and delete_world_asset. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the 'Edit' vs 'Generate' distinction is clear.

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 phrase 'Does not generate new media' implies avoidance of generation tools, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. For a mutation tool with multiple siblings, more routing information would be beneficial.

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