add_assets_to_album

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a side effect: 'modifies album membership.' This adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or other potential consequences.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear action statement, usage context, side effect, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (add assets to album), the description covers the core functionality. The return summary is helpful even though an output schema exists. However, it omits prerequisites like album existence and potential error handling details.

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?

The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description's Args section provides clear semantics: 'Target album UUID' for album_id and 'List of asset UUIDs to add to the album' for asset_ids. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Add existing assets to an album.' It provides a specific use case: 'Use this to curate albums from search results or other asset lists.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_album' (create new) and 'remove_assets_from_album' (remove).

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 says when to use the tool (curate albums from lists) and notes that assets can belong to multiple albums simultaneously, which guides decision-making. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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