manage_asset_inbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait ('Originals are retained', implying non-destructive handling), but omits permission/auth requirements, what 'retry' actually mutates, and any side effects or limits — thin coverage for a multi-mode operation 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?

Two tight sentences with the operations front-loaded and no filler; the retained-originals note is a slightly orphaned trailing clause but overall the text is economical and well front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, multi-mode tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse: it does not define the mode values, explain `paths`, describe what a 'job' is, or state expected outcomes, leaving an agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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. It loosely hints at three modes (scan/inspect/retry) but never maps them to the `mode` parameter or its default value ('status'), and says nothing about what `paths` accepts or how it interacts with the modes.

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 names three distinct actions (scan the inbox, inspect jobs, retry failed revisions) on an 'asset inbox' resource, so the general purpose is discernible. However, it does not explain what the 'designated source inbox' is, and it never distinguishes this multi-mode tool from closely related siblings like get_asset_status, inspect_asset, or resume_workflow, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose each of the three listed modes. The description enumerates capabilities but offers no conditions, prerequisites, or routing to siblings.

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