import_asset

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and closed-world nature are covered structurally. The description adds real context beyond that by ruling out local-path and URL fetching and by asserting that assets go through an 'existing import pipeline'. It still omits what the call changes or creates, whether it is idempotent, and the practical size ceiling implied by the 16 MB data limit.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action and input format first and the constraint second. Nothing is padded, and every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, this is only partly adequate: the required payload semantics and the key safety boundary are stated. The optional coordination parameters (requestId, sessionId, expectedRevision) remain entirely opaque, so an agent cannot confidently use retry-safe or conflict-aware behavior.

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% with six parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it only explains 'data' as base64 content. It says nothing about name, mimeType, requestId, sessionId, or expectedRevision, leaving an agent to guess whether requestId is an idempotency key, sessionId scopes the target document, or expectedRevision triggers an optimistic-concurrency conflict.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('import a media asset') and specifies the input form ('supplied as base64 file content'), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-side siblings such as list_assets. It falls short of a 5 only because it does not name a competing tool or state where the resulting asset ends up.

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 gives one clear negative constraint ('No arbitrary local paths or server-side URL fetches'), which steers an agent away from a common wrong assumption. It never says when to prefer this tool, when not to use it, or what to do when content is not already base64 in memory, so usage guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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