install_asset

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals important behaviors: automatic resolution/verification of assetId, default stripping of a wrapping folder, overwriting of existing files, deferred import, and rejection of path-traversal entries. These are non-obvious and critical for safe usage, adding significant value beyond the structured metadata.

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?

Four well-structured sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, source methods, extraction and overwriting, and security check. No filler or redundancy; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate annotations, the description covers security, file system effects, import behavior, and both usage paths. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate side effects.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches key parameters: it explains that assetId resolves download URL and sha256, that downloadUrl is a direct .zip link with no hash verification, and that subdirectory/stripTopLevel control extraction. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description and clarifies trade-offs.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource pair: 'Download an asset from the Godot Asset Library and extract it into a project.' It precisely identifies the action and destination, and distinctly separates this from sibling tools like search_assets (which only searches) or export_project (which exports).

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 explains how to use the tool via assetId or downloadUrl, and implies it is for installing assets/addons. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it.

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