create_project_assetAssociates an asset with a project to track project resources. Requires project_assets:write scope.
Link an asset to a project. Requires project_assets:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | Asset ID (required) | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so a lower bar applies. The description usefully adds the required auth scope, which annotations do not carry, but says nothing about duplicate-link behavior, despite idempotentHint=false implying a repeat call may error or duplicate.
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?
Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and the prerequisite second. No filler or restated title text.
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 simple two-parameter linking tool with no output schema and annotations that already cover the safety profile, the description covers purpose and authorization adequately. The only real gap is what happens when the link already exists, given the non-idempotent annotation.
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 100% with only two UUID parameters, both documented in the schema with format/pattern constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
"Link an asset to a project" gives a specific verb (link) and both resources (asset, project), which is distinct from the many create_project_* and create_asset_* siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-neighbor create_project_infrastructure_asset or explain how linking relates to those variants.
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 purpose statement and the stated prerequisite scope (project_assets:write), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no alternative tool named for the related operations (e.g., delete_project_asset or create_project_infrastructure_asset).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.