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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses that every referencing design is affected and that the old storage object is permanently removed. It stops short of noting preconditions (e.g., that replacementPath must already exist) or permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences with the global scope and the irreversibility front-loaded. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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?

Safety profile and blast radius are well covered (annotations plus description), and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, for a three-parameter destructive tool with zero schema documentation, the complete absence of parameter guidance leaves a real hole in whether the agent can call it correctly.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for the three required parameters — and it explains none of them. An agent cannot tell from the text what distinguishes path (the target) from replacementPath (the source), nor why projectId is required.

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 ('Globally replaces an asset') and immediately scopes the operation as global rather than local, which separates it from siblings like move_assets, delete_assets, or upload_asset. The side effects named (reference updates, old object deletion) further pin down what 'replace' means here.

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?

The description makes clear this is a sweeping, irreversible operation, which implicitly tells an agent to be cautious, but it never names an alternative or states the conditions under which one should be chosen (e.g., upload_asset for a new file, delete_assets for removal only). Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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