Park Design Asset

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation (upload) but fails to disclose important traits like idempotency, overwrite behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens on failure. The lack of detail leaves the agent uninformed about side effects or constraints.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but insufficient for a tool with 10 parameters. It front-loads the action and medium but lacks structure or breakdown of complex behavior. For the complexity, it could be more verbose without losing conciseness.

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 (10 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or how to specify which content field to use. Critical context is missing for an upload tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, merely indicating 'inline text or base64 content'. It does not explain the mutual exclusivity of textContent and contentBase64, nor the purpose of optional parameters like tags, metadata, or drlAssetType.

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 (upload), the content types (inline text or base64), and the destination (FVI collection for DRL handoff). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_design_asset_upload by focusing on inline content rather than file uploads, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_design_asset_upload for file uploads or how to choose between textContent and contentBase64. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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