submit_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a significant behavioral trait ('versions auto-increment') and indicates the content is a markdown draft. However, it omits other relevant details such as permissions, overwrite behavior, or error conditions, so it is only partially transparent.

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 unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the action, the object, the format, and a key behavior, making every word earn its place.

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 tool has 3 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description still lacks essential context: parameter roles, usage prerequisites, and any side effects besides versioning. It is not complete enough for reliable invocation in diverse scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the 3 parameters. It hints that 'content' is markdown and that there is a 'match' (likely finding_id), but it does not explain asset_type or clarify each parameter's role. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently map inputs.

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 ('Store'), a resource ('YOUR draft (markdown) for a match'), and a key distinguishing behavior ('versions auto-increment'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_asset_file (retrieve) and submit_findings (submit findings).

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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies usage for storing a draft but does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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