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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool stores a URL reference and lazily fetches bytes on sync, returns the full object, and respects space scoping. This gives meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic mutation hint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value—purpose, behavioral detail, and scoping—without redundancy.

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?

The tool has a complex nested body and no output schema, but the description covers the key behaviors: space scoping, lazy fetch, and return value. It doesn't elaborate on nested metadata shapes, but the schema points to the OpenAPI spec, so the description is adequate for selection and basic invocation.

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 100% with descriptions for body and space_id. The description adds minimal new detail about parameters, merely reinforcing that the asset is registered by URL and space_id can override. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool registers an asset by URL, lists supported types (image, logo, video), and distinguishes it from update/delete by noting lazy fetch behavior and space scoping. This is a specific verb+resource definition that differentiates it from sibling tools like update_asset or attach_asset_to_ad.

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 provides clear context: scoped to active Space, with a pointer to set_active_space and space_id override. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over update_asset or list exclusions, so it falls short of fully explicit alternatives.

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