aia_add_asset

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the copy operation and file types, but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing assets, modifies the .aia archive, whether the source remains untouched, or what success/failure returns look like. For a mutating tool with no annotation safety hints, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single sentence conveys the verb, object, destination, and example file types with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately useful.

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 a simple tool with highly documented parameters and no nested objects, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient to call it correctly. However, the absence of an output schema means there is no explanation of what the tool returns, and side-effect behavior is also unaddressed, leaving moderate uncertainty for an agent.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the schema already documents them. The description adds no new details beyond naming the asset folder, so it does not improve or compensate for parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Copy') with a clear resource ('a local file') and destination ('the project's assets folder'), plus a parenthetical of asset types. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like aia_add_screen, aia_add_component, and aia_set_blocks.

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?

The description gives clear context: this tool is for embedding local files into a project's assets. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation it describes is sufficiently distinct from all sibling tools that an agent can infer when to use it.

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