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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations: 'Generates nothing and spends nothing at the provider' rules out credit spend and generation, and 'not placed anywhere automatically' clarifies the downstream state. It leaves open whether repeated calls create duplicates, even though idempotentHint=false implies it — a small gap given annotations otherwise carry the safety profile.

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 short sentences, all front-loaded with the action and its scoping, then the two behavioral caveats. No restatement of the name or title and nothing wasted.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers source, destination, cost, and placement behavior adequately. It does not say what the call returns (e.g. the imported media id/URL needed for the subsequent placement step), which is the one thing an agent might still need to infer.

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 83% and already documents provider, site_id, provider_asset_id, kind and user_goal. The description only echoes that provider_asset_id comes from list_connected_assets and that a single asset of image/video kind is copied, adding little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copy one existing image or video') plus source (connected creative account) and destination (site's media library), and ties the id to list_connected_assets. An agent can distinguish it from upload_asset or import_images_from_url without opening any schema.

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?

'by its id from list_connected_assets' routes the agent to the prerequisite discovery step, and 'It is not placed anywhere automatically' sets expectations for follow-up placement. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling importers/uploaders (upload_asset, import_images_from_url), so alternatives remain implicit.

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