replace_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and equivalence to relink_asset, without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the original file is deleted), permissions, reversibility, or return values. This is minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with a parenthetical clarification. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too sparse. It omits prerequisites, error behavior, output format, and any operational context. The only extra context is the pointer to relink_asset, which relies on knowing that tool's behavior.

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 50% (name and linkId are described, filePath and timeoutSec are not). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, only the general notion of 'another file' which loosely maps to filePath but does not clarify the requirements or relationships between parameters.

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 a specific action: 'Replace a placed asset with another file', which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings; it equates itself to relink_asset ('same as relink_asset'), which is a sibling tool, reducing differentiation.

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 an explicit alternative by saying 'same as relink_asset', implying the agent can use either tool interchangeably. However, it lacks explicit context for when to prefer this tool over others, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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