contentrain_register_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the file must already exist, which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't disclose other traits like whether this is a read/write operation, potential side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second adds a critical prerequisite. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place by providing essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite but doesn't explain what 'registering' does, what the response looks like, or other behavioral aspects. It's complete enough for basic use but has clear gaps.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (path, mimetype, alt) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Register a new asset') and target resource ('in assets.json'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'contentrain_deregister_asset' or 'contentrain_list_assets'. However, it doesn't specify what 'registering' entails beyond file existence, making it slightly less specific than a perfect 5.

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 implies usage by stating 'The file must already exist at the specified path in the repository', which provides context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'contentrain_deregister_asset' or 'contentrain_list_assets', nor does it mention exclusions or specific scenarios.

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