interchange_reimport_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond them: the failure mode when no Interchange import data exists. It still doesn't state what existing data gets overwritten, but the added precondition is meaningful 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?

Three tight sentences: the action, the precondition/error case, and the return shape. Front-loaded with the verb and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by inlining the return fields (asset_path, reimported, count, note). The main remaining gap is how destructive the overwrite is, which for a destructiveHint=true tool could be spelled out.

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% and the single parameter's format (asset path vs fully-qualified object path) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Reimport an existing asset') and names the underlying mechanism (UInterchangeAssetImportData / UInterchangeManager::ReimportAsset). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling interchange_import_asset, which performs a fresh import.

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 gives the precondition: the asset must have Interchange import data, and legacy-factory or never-imported assets error out. This is a clear usage signal, though it doesn't name the alternative tool (interchange_import_asset) to use when import data is absent.

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