organize_project_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: it discloses that it verifies stale candidates, preserves GUID/native references, records inverse moves, saves native files yet does not roll back unrelated scene edits, leaves protected/scripts/scenes/data in place with reasons, keeps Unreal redirectors, and does not rewrite code/config paths. It even clarifies security/cost behavior ('No model provider, visual AI guessing or paid calls' and 'excluding sensitive data').

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?

Dense but well-organized, front-loading the core purpose then a mode-by-mode breakdown. Each sentence adds distinct operational or behavioral details. Slightly long and run-on in places, but no filler.

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?

Complete for a multi-mode, mutating asset-organization tool with no output schema. The description covers the full lifecycle (scan→plan→inspect→apply→undo), safety semantics, exclusions, and cost/behavior constraints. Nothing critical to correct invocation 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains mode values (scan, plan, settings, inspect, history, apply/undo), the settings sub-object (destination, rename bool, group_by 'type'/'source', exclude, overrides, rules), plus the scan_id/plan_id relationship, providing substantial meaning beyond the bare schema. It could be clearer on some top-level params like limit/offset/scope.

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: 'Automatically name/classify project assets through native Unity/UE moves; supports undo.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_project_assets or tag_project_asset. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, preventing a 5.

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 mode-by-mode walkthrough (scan, plan, settings, inspect, history, apply/undo) gives clear sequential usage context and specific flow instructions like 'plan: use scan_id equal to the completed scan request_id'. However it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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