bdesign_asset_import

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no additional behavioral details such as whether importing the same file twice creates duplicates, whether it overwrites existing assets, or what side effects occur on the asset library. The description relies on implied behavior.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It directly states the purpose and the required parameter type, making it easy to parse.

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?

The tool is a straightforward import action, but the description does not mention what the function returns (e.g., asset ID, success status) or any potential errors (e.g., invalid path, unsupported format). Without an output schema, this missing context leaves users uncertain about the outcome.

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 description clarifies that filePath is an absolute path, which adds meaning. However, projectId is not explained at all despite being an optional parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates by addressing one of two parameters.

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 states the action (import), the resource (project Asset library), and the input type (local image, video, or audio file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like asset_list and asset_get by focusing on adding a new 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?

The description provides context (import from absolute path) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like asset_list or asset_extract_frame. It implies usage for adding assets but lacks direct guidance on when not to use it.

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