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

Annotations declare destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description adds the crucial 'PARTIAL SAVE' semantic — only the AssetBundle field changes while all other v1/v2 fields stay untouched. This merge-style disclosure goes beyond the annotations and tells the agent exactly what is and isn't affected. It doesn't cover auth or rate-limit context, so not a 5.

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 critical 'PARTIAL SAVE' constraint is front-loaded, followed by dictionary semantics and the sibling routing. Every sentence carries information; the parenthetical examples are a minor bit of extra verbosity but still useful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is written, what is preserved, the parameter shape, and the alternative tool. That's sufficient to call it correctly; only permissions/return expectations are unaddressed, which is minor given the shape of the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the dictionary maps a logical bundle slug (key) to its CDN URL (value), with examples of the content type. This clarifies the nested object's shape and intent.

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 states a specific verb and resource (writes ONLY the 'AssetBundle' field) and precisely scopes the operation. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from ImageData for image-only cases, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 gives a clear use condition ('binary game content') and names the alternative for image-only content ('use ImageData'), routing the agent well. It stops short of stating prerequisites (e.g., a valid title_id) or broader exclusions, so it's strong but not fully exhaustive.

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