assign_asset_to_slot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: synchronous execution (no polling), side effects (Main-LP changes create a new draft version), and clear semantics (clear:true or assetId:null). It also explains the difference between single and array slots. This is thorough and goes beyond what is obvious.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with every sentence adding valuable information. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then systematically covers key details (slot keys, array vs. single, side pages, clearing, synchronous behavior, draft versioning). No redundant or fluff content.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains prerequisites, slot key discovery, input variations, target page selection, clearing options, and side effects. It provides the agent with enough context to invoke the tool correctly without additional lookups.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds substantial meaning: it explains that assetId is for single slots and assetIds for array slots, that clear:true or null can empty the slot, and that sidePageSlug targets a specific side page while pageKey is ignored. This provides critical disambiguation beyond 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 purpose: 'Assign, reassign, or clear the asset in a landing-page or side-page slot.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (asset slot). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_asset_slots and list_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 provides explicit usage context: when to use this tool (to assign/clear assets in slots), prerequisites (asset in brand library, matching media type), and references to alternative tools for discovering valid slot keys (list_asset_slots) and managing assets (list_assets, upload_asset, import_asset_from_url). It also clarifies synchronous behavior.

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