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

The description explicitly discloses that a linked copy is created and that the original row is not moved, which is non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations. It also notes the $0.10 cost and API key requirement. The annotations are all false hints, so there is no contradiction, though cleanup or duplicate-creation consequences are not discussed.

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 and front-loaded: the primary action is in the first sentence, followed by role values and legacy/cost/auth details. Every sentence adds useful information and there is 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?

Core behavior, authorization cost, roles, and legacy usage are covered, and an output schema exists for return values. However, the required entity_type/entity_id semantics and the optional asset_type/metadata parameters remain unexplained, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for asset_id versus url and lists the role enum values, but it does not explain the required 'entity_type' and 'entity_id' parameters, nor 'asset_type' or 'metadata'. This is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Link an existing asset_id to another entity' and clarifies the core behavior with 'creating a linked copy (does not move the original row)'. This clearly distinguishes it from upload_asset or update_asset and says exactly what the tool accomplishes.

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 usage context is implied: the agent can infer this tool is for attaching an existing asset to an entity. However, it never explicitly names sibling tools such as upload_asset or update_asset, and it does not state when not to use this tool. The 'Legacy: pass url instead of asset_id' note is parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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