Import a local image asset

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It covers path restrictions, supported formats, and error conditions but does not mention whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing assets), required permissions, or rate limits. For a simple import, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, followed by constraints. Every sentence adds essential information. No fluff, well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: covers what it does, valid inputs, error behavior. Could mention if it overwrites existing assets or requires specific permissions, but not critical for basic usage.

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 100% with a single parameter 'file' described. Description adds value beyond schema by detailing path constraints (OVERDARE_ASSET_ROOTS) and supported extensions, which are not in the schema. Error condition for unsupported formats also aids agent invocation.

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?

Description clearly states it imports a local image file to the asset manager and returns an asset ID. Verb 'import' and resource 'local image asset' are specific. Easily distinguishable from sibling tool 'studio_import_model' which imports models.

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?

Provides explicit constraints on allowed paths (project boundaries or OVERDARE_ASSET_ROOTS) and lists supported image extensions. Also mentions capability error for unsupported formats. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but contextual guidance is sufficient.

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