brand_ingest_assets

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

Discloses read-only in scan mode, writes MANIFEST.yaml in tag mode, and describes return values (directory summaries with file counts, untagged file lists, and tagged file details). No annotations provided, so description fully carries behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the main action, then mode details, usage guidance, return info, and exclusions. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return structure sufficiently. It covers modes, parameters, usage context, and exclusions, making the tool's behavior fully understandable for an agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates parameter roles and adds context about mode-specific requirements (e.g., file required in tag mode), but does not significantly extend beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 tool scans and catalogs brand assets in .brand/assets/ using modes 'scan' and 'tag'. It specifies asset types (illustrations, stickers, patterns, icons) and distinguishes from siblings like brand_set_logo and brand_extract_web.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after adding asset files, when user says catalog assets, what assets do I have, tag this illustration) and when not to use (NOT for logo management, NOT for brand extraction). Alternatives are named.

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