configure_asset_import

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it reimports the asset, which is consistent. No further behavioral details (e.g., overwrites previous settings, requires asset to exist) are provided, but annotations cover the core safety profile.

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 efficient paragraph that front-loads the main action and then details the settings_props structure. It uses bullet-like formatting (dashes and colons) for clarity. No extraneous sentences; every part adds value.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but the tool is a mutation so return may not be critical. It covers the main parameters and effects, but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), or behavior when settings are invalid. Could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates significantly by explaining asset_path (project-relative path) and settings_props (list of settings with types and enums). However, project_path is not explained, leaving one parameter ambiguous. Overall, the description adds substantial meaning beyond 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 clearly states the tool sets import settings and reimports an asset, using a specific verb ('Setzt' and 'reimportiert') and resource ('Import-Einstellungen eines Assets'). It distinguishes from siblings like import_external_asset by focusing on configuration rather than initial import.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for adjusting import settings of an already imported asset, but does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to similar tools like configure_project.

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