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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the call returns a durable job handle, implying asynchronous processing and poll-ability. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 sentences with no filler: the action and destination are front-loaded, and the durable job handle result is stated directly. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is too thin for an 8-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage. It leaves the caller to infer the meaning and provenance of several key parameters, and while the output schema may document the return value, the description does not provide enough operational context for correct invocation.

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 only 38%, leaving assetId, format, placement, unitPolicy, and targetCollection without explanatory context. The description does not compensate for this gap and adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already has.

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 gives a specific action ('Import'), a specific resource ('a validated uploaded asset'), a destination ('into a project as a new revision'), and a result ('Returns a durable job handle'). The phrase 'validated uploaded asset' distinguishes this from the sibling asset_library_import without needing to open the 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?

The description states a clear usage context: the asset must already be validated and uploaded, and the tool creates a new revision in a project. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use asset_library_import for library assets', so it stops short of an explicit when/not guidance.

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