place_asset

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing that link keeps assets in sync with the library while preventing local edits. It also says what the return value contains, though it does not cover permission requirements, name collisions, or undo 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 front-loaded with the action and linking distinction, then documents arguments and return value efficiently. Each section is relevant and there is no wasted text.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the workflow, all parameters, linking semantics, and return contents. The important gaps are minor and not necessary for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains where library names come from, that file is relative to the library, what asset_type values mean, and what link changes. This is substantially more informative than the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: bringing an asset from a library into the scene. It distinguishes append from link and points to list_assets as the discovery step, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings such as link_or_append or import_file.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite by telling the agent to find the asset with list_assets first. It also explains the practical choice between append and link, but does not name alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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