Add assets to album

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds that this 'modifies album membership' and that assets may belong to multiple albums at once, which clarifies it is additive rather than moving. It does not cover permission requirements or what happens when an asset is already a member, leaving some behavioral detail unstated.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then a use case, then the behavioral note, then structured Args. The Returns block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is bloated or disorganized.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, selection context, the mutation side effect, both parameters, and result shape. Remaining gaps (duplicate/already-member handling, batch limits, partial-failure semantics) are minor but real for a membership-mutating tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining both parameters; it identifies album_id as the target album UUID and asset_ids as a list of asset UUIDs. That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles, though it adds no format, ordering, or batch-size constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add existing assets to an album'), and the word 'existing' usefully signals that this links already-uploaded assets rather than uploading new ones. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling remove_assets_from_album, but the intent is unambiguous from the text alone.

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 a concrete use case ('curate albums from search results or other asset lists'), which tells an agent when this tool is the right call. It stops short of naming the inverse tool or stating when not to use it (e.g., assets already in the album, or using update_album instead).

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