upload_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds zero behavioral context beyond that — nothing about auth requirements, overwrite semantics for an existing asset name, or rate limits, which matter for a non-idempotent write.

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 words are technically short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the phrase carries no information an agent can act on. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose or scope to build on.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies none of the context needed: no destination, no overwrite behavior, no relationship to upload_file_route or upload_song. The schema alone cannot disambiguate this tool from its siblings.

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 100%, so all four parameters (name, asset_path, asset_base64, asset_filename) are already documented in the schema, including the mutually exclusive path-vs-base64 guidance. Per the baseline rule for high coverage with no param info in the description, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Upload Asset" merely restates the tool name with no verb+resource specificity, no scope, and no differentiation from siblings such as list_assets, get_asset, or delete_asset_endpoint. An agent learns nothing about what is being uploaded, where it goes, or what constitutes an asset.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative. Notably, the sibling set contains upload_file_route and upload_song, which an agent has no basis to choose between.

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