add_asset

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses conditional parameter requirements (name/type/classification required for single mode), the batch capability, and the return value (confirmation with asset ID(s)). It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with its purpose and mode guidance. The only notable issue is a slight redundancy between 'Add a new asset' in the first sentence and 'This tool adds one or more assets' in the second, which wastes a little space.

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 10 parameters, two usage modes, and output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return format. It lacks details about the structure of individual items in the batch dict and any prerequisites, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in typical 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is essential. It adds meaningful context by providing examples for type and classification, ranges for sensitivity and criticality, and by clarifying the batch 'items' parameter. Some descriptions like 'Owner of the asset' and 'Description of the asset' are still tautological, preventing a 5.

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 'Add a new asset to the system' and elaborates that it supports both single and batch operations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_asset and list_assets by focusing on creating one or more assets.

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 explicit mode-based usage guidance: for single items provide name, type, and classification directly; for batch use the 'items' parameter. It does not mention when to use this tool over similar add_* tools or when not to use it, so it misses a top score.

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