add_asset

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: LLM-reasons factor decomposition, reuses generation pipeline prompt, creates new version, details three outcomes (normal, auto-restore, rejection) with their responses, and lists error conditions (503, 502) with retry advice.

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 fairly long but well-structured with paragraphs, bullet points for outcomes (new lines), and error conditions. It front-loads the core purpose. While some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'creates a new version' in first line and later), it is generally efficient.

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 tool complexity (7 params, multiple outcomes, error handling, interaction with soft-delete), the description covers all necessary aspects: inputs, process, outputs (including return envelope fields), and special cases. Output schema exists, and description references its contents (e.g., 'auto_restored: True'). Comprehensive.

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 86% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that component_ids scopes the asset, links to deployable units, and handles multi-instance assets. It summarizes identity-bearing fields. However, it does not add semantics for server_version, which lacks a schema description.

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 'Add a new asset to a threat model. Creates a new version.' It specifies what the caller supplies (identity-bearing fields) and distinguishes itself from siblings like edit_asset and restore_asset, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to add a new asset) and when not (e.g., for overriding factors, use edit_asset; for restoring, expect auto-restore outcome). Also gives context on LLM gating against re-add of soft-deleted assets, helping the agent decide in edge cases.

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