design_asset

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: the brief is immutable with its source revision, existing recipe revisions keep their original design, planning alone does not rebuild geometry, and no model API or beauty score is used. It omits permissions, overwrite semantics, and any failure behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loads the save/read distinction and then proceeds through mode, params, defaults, and workflow. Sentences are dense and mostly earn their place, though the workflow tail ('Follow the returned design, then inspect a real render') is slightly tangential to invoking this specific tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries everything, and it covers mode selection, key parameters, immutability, and the fact that no generative model is involved. The only meaningful gap is focal_point and any note on what the read mode actually returns.

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 must compensate, and it explains role values (environment/interactable/hero), the content of decisions (silhouette, structure, materials, story, avoid), the null-description read mode, and recipe_kind's default route. Only focal_point is left unexplained, so it is strong but not complete.

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 specific verbs (save/read) and a specific resource (an asset design brief tied to game context and reference notes), and the dual-mode is explained by 'Omit description to read.' It does not name a sibling it is not, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit read/write switching ('Omit description to read'), when to supply recipe_kind ('only if a listed form fits'), and a workflow cue ('Follow the returned design, then inspect a real render'). It does not name alternatives such as set_art_brief or game_art_direction, so usage routing against siblings is incomplete.

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