保存节点资源到官网资产

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow position and the destination of the saved media, but it never says what permissions are needed, what happens if the node has no media or resource_index is out of range, or how idempotency is keyed. Useful but not rich.

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, zero waste, with the core action stated first and the pipeline context second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

It is a mutation tool with an output schema and solid annotations, and the description covers its place in the pipeline, so the biggest gaps are partially filled. Still, with six undocumented parameters and no error or precondition detail beyond the chain, an agent could compose a call without knowing what operation_id or resource_index should contain.

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% across six parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and mostly does not. It implies that node_key identifies the node and resource_index picks one of that node's media, but project_uuid, canvas_uuid, operation_id and name are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: save the real media resource referenced by a node into the site's 'my assets'. An agent understands the operation, but the description does not differentiate it from nearby siblings such as pavo_list_assets or the pavo_script_save_asset_state family, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence spells out the prerequisite ordering — upload media, create an upload node, then save the node asset — so an agent knows this is the terminal step of the upload chain and cannot be called first. It gives no explicit exclusions or alternative tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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