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

Annotations only flag destructive/not-idempotent; the description goes well beyond: it states the source asset ceases to exist along with its title and link, that sharing is taken from asset_id, that no media or feedback is deleted, that ordering determines the current version, and that failures are per-source without rollback. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 metaphor, and virtually every sentence carries information an agent needs for a destructive multi-source operation. It is dense and would benefit from light structuring, but there is no filler to cut.

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 destructive, multi-source tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, per-source results, refusal conditions, and side effects on the source asset and feedback. Nothing material an agent would need to call this correctly is missing.

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: asset_id is 'the asset that keeps its title, link and sharing', and source_ids behave differently depending on whether an asset id (all versions) or a version id (single version) is passed.

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+resource ('Make other assets or versions the NEWEST versions of asset_id') and grounds it in a familiar mental model ('as dragging one onto another does in the Flask app'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by routing new-media creation to 'the upload tools with version_of'.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use it when a revision was uploaded as a separate asset') and an explicit when-not/alternative ('To add NEW media as a version, use the upload tools with version_of'). It also enumerates the refusal conditions (still uploading, another team, more narrowly shared), leaving little to inference.

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