import_assets_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two input modes, defaults (replace_existing=True, extensions omitted means all files), and the destination path format. It implies write/destructive behavior (overwrite) but does not detail error handling or side effects. Still, it provides adequate behavioral context for a batch import.

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 efficiently structured: a one-line summary, a bullet for the either/or requirement, and a clean 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage pattern.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, two modes, batch operation), the description covers the key aspects: mutual exclusivity, filtering, overwrite behavior. It lacks explanation of return values (output schema exists but is not mentioned) and prerequisites (e.g., file existence). Still, it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter's purpose and usage: 'files: List of absolute file paths', 'source_directory: Absolute path to a folder', 'extensions: File extensions to include when scanning', etc. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema, making parameter selection clear.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Import multiple files into the Content Browser in one batch.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'import_asset' by explicitly stating 'batch' and two distinct modes (files list vs. directory scan). This sets it apart from single-asset import 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?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Provide EITHER 'files' (explicit list) OR 'source_directory' (scan a folder).' It explains when to use each parameter and notes that extensions can filter when scanning. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives (e.g., use 'import_asset' for single files), so it is not a perfect 5.

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