asset_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses several behavioral traits: a 10 MiB size cap, the optimistic-concurrency mechanism via if_match/sha256, and the executable mode behavior (omitted = preserve on update, non-executable on create). It omits permissions/auth requirements and error behavior on a sha mismatch.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The create/overwrite mechanics and key constraints are stated first; every clause carries semantic load.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical write semantics well but is silent on authentication, reversibility of overwrites, and failure modes, leaving gaps an agent would want before mutating an asset.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains if_match (create vs overwrite), encoding (text or base64, matching the enum), and executable, but leaves path, concept_id, and reason (a commit trailer) undefined.

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 pair and resource: 'Creates or updates a non-Markdown asset of an expanded concept.' The 'non-Markdown asset' qualifier implicitly separates it from concept_write/artifact_write, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 explicit procedural conditions: 'New: omit if_match; overwrite: if_match = current sha256.' This tells the agent exactly which path to take for create vs update. It does not name alternatives like asset_read or asset_delete, so no exclusions are provided.

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