reuse_project_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: it reuses the native asset, does not duplicate files, and does not claim new authorship. It omits scene side effects, whether placement is reversible/undoable, and any permission requirements, so significant gaps remain.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the action and constraint, with no filler. The final get_preview sentence is slightly terse and reads as a dangling operational note rather than integrated guidance, but overall it is efficient.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core action and reuse semantics but leaves positional placement, return/response semantics, and failure modes unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents 'path' and implies 'mode' via 'Preview or place', but the 'position' parameter is never mentioned, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 pair ('Preview or place') and clearly names the resource ('existing project model/prefab/Blueprint by its returned native path'). The second sentence distinguishes it from duplication/import siblings by noting it reuses the original native asset, though it doesn't name those siblings directly.

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 phrase 'by its returned native path' implies the path comes from an upstream lookup (e.g. search_project_assets), and the get_preview follow-up hints at the preview workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, and it never explains when 'preview' mode is preferable to 'place'.

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