reels_register_asset

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

Annotations only declare it is non-read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds real workflow context not present in those annotations: new variants are gated behind visual review and will not be returned by resolve until reviewed. It does not say what happens on duplicate registration or whether registration is idempotent, which keeps it below 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. The final sentence about visual review is slightly displaced from the variant guidance it belongs to, but nothing is wasted.

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 7-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers the purpose and the review gate but leaves the meaning of most parameters and the shape of the response unexplained. It is adequate to decide whether to call it, less adequate to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies assetId (reuse an existing one for variants) and implies the asset/variant relationship; kind's enum values, name, tags, and description constraints are entirely undocumented in prose.

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: 'Register an already imported file in the searchable bank,' which clearly separates it from reels_import_asset (which would do the importing) and reels_search_assets (which consumes the bank). It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

'Reuse an existing asset ID when adding a new variant' gives one concrete usage rule for the variant path. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of reels_import_asset or reels_import_pipeline, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the file must already be imported) beyond the opening clause.

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