art.asset.register

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 validation of schema, style, source, and relationships, but does not clearly state the outcome (e.g., creation success) or any side effects or failure behavior. This leaves some ambiguity about the tool's actual behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a concise list of validation areas. No redundant or vague wording is present.

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 complexity (12 parameters, nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context for the tool's function. It does not mention return values or explicit preconditions (e.g., uniqueness of ID), but these are not critical for a create operation and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the tool description adds minimal extra semantic value. It does highlight that validation applies to certain fields, but this is already implied by the schema's required fields and enums. The description does not clarify any nuanced parameter interactions beyond what the schema already conveys.

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' and the resource 'new asset in the registry', distinguishing it from other asset operations like update or archive. It also hints at the validation scope, making the tool's primary function unambiguous.

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 the tool is for creating new assets, which is sufficient given the presence of related sibling tools like art.asset.update. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so it falls slightly short of fully explicit guidance.

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