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

The annotations already disclose that this is a non-idempotent, destructive mutation, so the description does not need to repeat safety basics. The description adds useful workflow behavior: after changing a description, the reference image should be re-rendered with assets_generate. It does not describe permissions, what exactly is destroyed, or return behavior.

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 two tightly focused sentences with no filler. The primary use case is front-loaded, followed immediately by the required follow-up action.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main create/update workflow but does not explain what is returned or how to obtain an asset_id after creating a new asset. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the return/result behavior remains unclear. It is adequate but has a meaningful completeness gap.

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 100%, so the schema already defines all six parameters, including the action-based create/update requirements. The description implies that asset_type covers character/environment/object and that description changes affect renders, but adds no syntax or conditional details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: add a character, environment, or object missed by Analyze Script, or rewrite an asset description. It also distinguishes this editing tool from assets_generate by saying the reference image should be rendered again via assets_generate after a description change. It is clear but does not distinguish itself from every other *_edit sibling.

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 explicitly names when to use the tool: to add assets Analyze Script missed or rewrite an existing description. It also gives the follow-up alternative for rendering a changed reference image with assets_generate asset_ids. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer assets_read first, so it falls short of a full 5.

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