fmod_Asset_setAssetPath

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a mutation (sets path) and returns a boolean for success/failure, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. The mention of 'relative to project assets directory' adds some context, but overall depth is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 plus a reference, all front-loaded with key information. Every sentence earns its place: action, relative directory, return value, and source. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the return type (true/false) and context about relative paths. However, it lacks completeness for a mutation tool—no mention of prerequisites (e.g., asset must be a file asset), potential failure modes, or validation behavior. Adequate but could be richer.

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% (both parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the filePath is relative to the project assets directory, which is not specified in the schema's parameter description ('The path to move the asset to'). This extra context improves semantics.

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 ('Sets the path of the file the asset refers to'), identifies the resource ('the asset'), and specifies the scope ('relative to the project assets directory'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fmod_Asset_getAssetPath (which retrieves the path) and fmod_Asset_getAbsoluteAssetPath (which returns absolute path).

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 for modifying asset file references but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It lacks prerequisites or conditions for successful operation.

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