Export Asset

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the approval gate, the native Save dialog, the poll-until-applied loop, and the distinction between cancelled and success. It does not restate idempotency or the destructive hint, but the added workflow context is what an agent actually needs here.

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?

Terse, front-loaded, and free of filler – the ZIP contents come first, then the workflow constraints. The telegraphic phrasing ('Requires passing gates') is slightly clipped but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the approval, save-dialog, and polling semantics plus the failure interpretation. The only minor gap is that it doesn't point at validate_asset or get_operation for the polling step.

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?

Only two parameters with 50% description coverage; request_id is fully documented in the schema (including retry guidance), while target is a fixed const. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the load and the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Propose') plus the exact resource produced (a Bedrock asset ZIP) and enumerates the packaged contents (geometry, PNG, animations, controllers, entity, manifest, bbmodel, report). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as validate_asset or preview_animation.

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?

Explains the operational preconditions (passing gates, editor approval, native Save dialog) and warns that 'cancelled is not success' and no arbitrary output path is accepted, which tells the agent how to interpret outcomes. It stops short of explicitly naming prerequisites like validate_asset as the alternative or prior step.

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