manage_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it well. It discloses important behaviors such as the confirm=true requirement for upload_asset, the access dependency for generate_model, file-serialization side effects for export actions, and the local ./asset-library destination. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent essential context about side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but it front-loads the most critical rule ('ALWAYS search first') and packs actions efficiently with parenthetical specifics. It could be more scannable as a bullet list, but for 27 parameters it remains appropriately sized and avoids fluff.

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 the tool's high complexity (27 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all action types with enough context to guide invocation. It doesn't explain return values or error cases, but the action list plus schema coverage makes the tool usable. A more detailed walkthrough for each action would push it to 5, but this is solid.

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?

The input schema already covers 96% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping parameters to specific actions (e.g., 'search (keyword/query + assetType)', 'insert (assetId into parentPath)') and highlighting critical flags like confirm=true. While the description doesn't explain every alias or default, the schema already handles that detail.

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 description clearly identifies the tool as managing Roblox Toolbox/Creator Store assets plus a local asset library, and enumerates every action with specific verbs and resource targets. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle terrain, scripts, or instances.

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 provides a strong usage rule: 'ALWAYS search first, then insert using an assetId from those results — never invent or hardcode IDs.' It also outlines the workflow for each action. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with nearby sibling tools like manage_audio or manage_selection, though the asset-specific context makes such exclusions less necessary.

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