asset_import

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints: maximum 20 MB, rejection of scripts/external SVG references, and the fact that it registers an asset for later use. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured hints.

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 concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then the workflow. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns 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?

For a tool with 6 required parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the roles of documentId, expectedRevision, operationId, or actor, nor what the tool returns (e.g., the asset id). An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call without additional knowledge.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains that 'data' is base64 image bytes and implicitly covers 'name' by mentioning registering an asset. However, it leaves documentId, expectedRevision, operationId, and actor unexplained, which are crucial for correct invocation (e.g., expectedRevision for concurrency, operationId for idempotency). Partial coverage only.

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 verb (import) and resource (approved local image bytes as base64), lists supported formats (PNG/JPEG/WebP/SVG), and explains the intended workflow (register asset then use its id in an image element). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_import, which import entire projects.

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 context for when to use the tool: for approved local images, with a size limit, and rejecting scripts/external SVG references. It also outlines the workflow of registering the asset and using the returned id. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses explicit exclusions.

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