superset_assets_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that overwrite=True irreversibly overwrites ALL matching objects across multiple asset categories and that confirm_overwrite is required. This is excellent transparency for a destructive operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear first-line purpose, a critical warning in caps, and a concise parameter breakdown. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. The warning is appropriately prominent.

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?

Despite having an output schema (which means return values need not be described), this description covers all essential aspects for a safe and correct use: what the tool does, how to use the parameters, and the irreversible overwrite risk. It is complete for the tool's complexity and destructive potential.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does exactly that with an Args section defining file_path as an absolute path, overwrite behavior, and confirm_overwrite as a mandatory confirmation. This is essential information not present in the schema.

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 tool's function: importing Superset assets from a ZIP file. It specifies the source format (ZIP created via assets_export) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashboard_import or chart_import by covering all asset types. The verb 'Import' and resource 'Superset assets' 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?

The description explains the primary use case (importing assets exported via assets_export) and provides critical guidance about overwrite behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives for single-type imports, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when dealing with a ZIP file of multiple asset types.

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