prepare_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 real behavior: a failed error/budget check queues nothing, engine identities/instances survive a successful reimport, geometry locks apply to recipe edits, and preparation may reduce geometry. That is unusually rich side-effect disclosure. It loses a point for not clarifying permissions, cost, or response shape.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the text is short, but sentences are terse to the point of being cryptic ('Review source before/studio and engine captures') and lean on unexplained domain jargon, reducing practical clarity.

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 reprocessing/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the behavioral notes are a genuine asset, but parameter meaning and failure/response expectations remain underspecified.

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% across two parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. 'Uses import_asset settings' faintly gestures at the settings object but says nothing about its shape, defaults, or what asset_id must reference.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Reprocess an imported asset from retained source with measured simplification and LODs.' That distinguishes it from import_asset and build_asset well enough. It stops short of a 5 because the relationship to siblings like build_asset and publish_prepared is left implicit.

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 implies context ('Uses import_asset settings', 'Review source before/studio and engine captures') but never states explicitly when to choose prepare_asset over import_asset, build_asset, or restore_asset. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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