asset_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does this thoroughly. It discloses that compression is decided by source filename, that alpha loss may occur, that warnings are issued before and after conversion, that output cannot be repaired, and that verdicts are read from the written file rather than the exit code.

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 longer than typical but every paragraph carries essential operational detail: conversion behavior, compression quirk, path rules, and verdict source. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains coherent, though the alpha-loss narrative could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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 description is complete for a conversion tool with subtle behavior. It covers path resolution, defaults, output placement, compression selection, alpha-loss limitation, and result interpretation. Even though an output schema exists, the description adds necessary behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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%, so the description must explain parameters—and it does. It defines source path resolution relative to absolute, repository, or build.project_root, and explains output defaults and placement behavior. This gives an agent everything needed to pass meaningful values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: converting one texture between .png and .paa and judging the result. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by focusing on a single texture conversion plus quality verdict, making it easy for an agent to recognize when this tool is relevant.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is applicable—when converting textures between PNG and PAA formats and needing alpha-loss awareness. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scenario is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use without confusion.

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