embed_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the basic effect (unlinking from disk) but omits whether the operation is reversible, whether it modifies the document file, any permission requirements, or side effects on existing links. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool has three parameters (including timeoutSec) and no output schema. The description does not explain what happens after embedding, error conditions, or the purpose of timeoutSec. Given the mutation potential and lack of annotations, key behavioral context is missing.

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 67% (name and linkId are described). The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, mainly 'linked asset' which aligns with the parameter descriptions but does not clarify timeoutSec or how the parameters relate to the embedding process.

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 the action ('Embed a linked asset') and the key consequence ('unlink from disk'), distinguishing it from siblings like relink_asset or replace_asset. The verb and resource are specific and 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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'unlink from disk' — the tool is for making a linked asset part of the document. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives like relink_asset or replace_asset, nor any prerequisites or context.

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