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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that the result is saved as a draft, that write consent and Strategy management rights are required, and that a repeat call can produce a duplicate. That duplicates point is the key behavioral risk and it is stated explicitly, matching the non-idempotent annotation rather than contradicting it.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope in the first two sentences, then auth, return value, and duplicate risk in descending priority. It runs five sentences and the fetch/include_asset aside is slightly fussy, but no sentence is pure 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?

For a single-parameter write tool it covers the essentials: what is created, in what state, under what permissions, what comes back, and how to recover from an ambiguous retry. The return-value sentence is partly redundant given the output schema exists, and the sibling overlap remains unresolved.

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 0%, and the nested object carries its own required fields and constraints, which the description largely restates ("a title and populated Markdown sections"). The one genuine addition is naming the section body as Markdown, a semantic the schema's opaque string pattern cannot convey.

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?

"Creates one asset" gives a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence narrows scope to a Strategy with title plus populated Markdown sections saved as a draft. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the sibling create_strategy, which appears to do an overlapping job, so the boundary is left obscure.

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 routes the agent away from publication and patent work ("separate actions") and explains that uncertain outcomes should be reconciled via search rather than retried. That is real when/when-not guidance, but the most pressing alternative question — create_asset vs create_strategy — goes unanswered.

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