propose_assets_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does not disclose whether this mutates state, whether it invokes a model (cost/latency), whether prompts are persisted or returned only, or any rate limits — all critical for a 'synthesize' operation.

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 with no filler, and the resource and scope are front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and one of two parameters undocumented, the definition leaves too much unknown: what is returned (one prompt? several variant prompts?), whether results are stored, and how errors are surfaced. For a generation tool this is inadequate.

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 compensate. It references item_id only obliquely ('a specific catalog item ID') and never mentions the 'project' parameter or its 'default' default, leaving half the inputs undocumented anywhere.

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 ('Synthesize') and a specific artifact ('context-aware prompts (icon, 3D prop, variants)') scoped to a catalog item ID, which is more informative than the tool name alone. The name 'propose_assets_for' suggests asset creation while the description says prompt synthesis, leaving a small ambiguity, and no sibling is named to differentiate it from the many asset/recipe tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as run_recipe, run_verb, or get_asset, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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