scratchjr_add_svg_asset

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

Annotations only say the operation is not read-only and not destructive, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return value ('md5 asset name usable in projects') and the SVG/dimension constraints, while avoiding any contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences that front-load the purpose and put the most important constraints and return behavior right after. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

There is no output schema and no parameter descriptions, yet the tool still communicates key requirements and the return shape. It is minimally viable, but gaps remain around the name parameter and how width/height should be determined for characters versus the 480×360 background convention.

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%, and the description helps with svg (matching viewBox), kind (character/background), and width/height (background 480×360). However, the required 'name' parameter is never explained and character width/height semantics are left implicit, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('Add') and a concrete resource ('custom character or background') with a qualifier ('static SVG geometry'). This cleanly separates it from sibling project-management tools and list_assets, so an agent can tell what the tool does at a glance.

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 direct usage context: it is the tool for adding SVG-based custom characters/backgrounds, and it imposes concrete format rules ('SVG with a matching viewBox; backgrounds should be 480×360'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling offers the same add-asset action.

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