save_asset_description

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose meaningful traits: corrections are protected from later automatic runs, the write touches search metadata rather than native filenames, and uncertainty should be preserved. It omits auth requirements, error/return behavior, and idempotency, but the key mutation semantics are unusually well covered.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then compact directives; every sentence carries a distinct constraint (field list, uncertainty rule, corrected rule, protection rule, rename alternative). 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, a nested free-form object, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers behavior, scope, and an alternative tool well. The remaining gaps are the unexplained evidence_id and the return/confirmation behavior after saving.

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% and the description parameter is a free-form object, so the enumeration of expected keys (name, object_type, materials[], style, uses[], confidence) adds real value beyond the schema, and 'corrected' semantics are explained. However, the required evidence_id is never explained, leaving one of three params undocumented.

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 ('Index a visual description') and enumerates the metadata fields it stores, so the agent knows what lands in search metadata. It does not clearly differentiate itself from near-siblings like describe_project_assets or tag_project_asset. The 'not native filenames' clause helps scope it.

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 conditional guidance ('Only set corrected for an explicit user correction') and points to organize_project_assets when the goal is renaming. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over describe_project_assets/tag_project_asset for the main indexing action, so tool selection is left to inference.

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