add_asset_to_collection

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that it reads back the object count and returns added/verified flags, but does not explain auth needs, failure modes, or idempotency behavior beyond the annotation.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the returns block is useful, but a garbled fragment ('must match the share type the collection was created with.') dangles awkwardly in the middle, hurting readability.

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, but the description compensates by listing the return fields. For a mutation tool it is reasonably complete, though it omits prerequisite/ordering guidance and any error or share-type mismatch behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds the constraint that share_type must match the collection's creation share type, which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Adds an asset to an existing collection') and notes the read-back of object count. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like remove_asset_from_collection and create_collection, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'existing collection' signals the collection must already exist, and the dangling constraint about share_type matching the collection's creation type hints at prerequisites. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-a-sibling guidance.

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