app_asset_library_images_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost none. It hints that the payload is a JSON:API envelope, but says nothing about auth/permissions, whether the call is idempotent, side effects, or failure modes for what is clearly a mutating POST.

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?

It is short and front-loads the route, but the parenthetical '(POST /v1/appAssetLibraryImages)' duplicates the text immediately preceding it verbatim. That redundant clause is pure waste, though the overall length is not excessive.

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 mutating create with a nested, loosely-typed body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description offloads everything to an external OpenAPI component reference the agent may not be able to resolve. The JSON:API envelope requirements and required fields are never surfaced inline.

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?

There is only one parameter ('body') and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely repeats the schema's pointer to components.schemas.AppAssetLibraryImageCreateRequest without adding any field-level or envelope detail of its own.

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 is essentially the tool name restated as an HTTP route: 'POST /v1/appAssetLibraryImages' adds no plain-language purpose beyond the 'create_instance' in the name. It never explains what an app asset library image is or what creating one accomplishes, so it does little to separate this from the update/get/delete siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. With siblings like app_asset_library_images_update_instance, app_asset_library_images_get_instance, and app_asset_library_images_delete_instance present, the description gives the agent nothing to disambiguate create vs. update vs. fetch.

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