import_asset_from_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'The server fetches and stores the file' and clarifies that assetType is 'recorded as a tag on the asset to preserve provenance.' This goes beyond the basic action and explains important side effects, though it does not cover permissions, failure modes, or return behavior.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action, and the second provides targeted guidance for a specific parameter. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, one required, and no output schema. The description covers the import process and the one nuanced parameter (assetType), which is sufficient for basic usage. However, it omits any mention of return values or common error conditions, which would make it more complete given the lack of an output schema.

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 high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the assetType parameter in detail: when to set it (for search_web_images results) and its storage semantics (recorded as a tag). This exceeds the schema's simple 'source-provenance' description. Other parameters rely on the schema, which is acceptable given high coverage.

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 action: 'Import an asset into the brand library from a public URL.' It uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('brand library'), and the second sentence adds a distinct use case (importing search_web_images results) that differentiates it from generic upload or CSV import tools.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you have a public URL) and specifically instructs when to set assetType ('when importing a result surfaced by search_web_images'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like upload_asset or import_assets_csv or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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