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

Goes beyond the annotations by stating that the old version is kept, which corroborates destructiveHint=false, and by explaining that existing projects keep the version they use while newly showing the newer one. That propagation semantics is genuinely useful. It still says nothing about what the call returns or whether any permission or size constraints apply.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good. The middle clause is grammatically elliptical ('in its place, collections and tags'), so the reader has to reconstruct that the asset keeps its position, collections and tags.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, so the description is the only documentation. It covers source, destination and versioning behavior, but does not tell the agent what the response contains (for example the new version identifier), which matters for chaining into update_version.

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 carries the full burden. It does explain withAssetId well (an existing library file, e.g. from create_upload or import_media), but assetId — the target asset — is left to inference, and neither parameter's format is clarified.

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: it makes a library file become the new current version of an asset, and it names the sibling update_version as the follow-up step for projects. An agent can distinguish it from replace_media or update_asset without opening the schema. Slightly elliptical phrasing ('becomes its current version, in its place, collections and tags') mutes the precision a little.

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 clear context: the withAssetId file must already be in the library, typically one just produced by create_upload or import_media to: folder, and points to update_version when a project should be moved onto the new version. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over replace_media, so the exclusion set is incomplete.

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