add_assets_to_group

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

The description adds the useful context that this is a batch link operation, but it does not explain behavior around duplicate links, validation failures, or whether the operation is atomic. The annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, so the description adds only modest behavioral context beyond them.

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 structured as an efficient docstring with args, accepted values, and a concrete example. It is somewhat verbose due to the full enum list, but every part adds necessary information for correct invocation.

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 provides all necessary input semantics and a clear example, which is sufficient for a mutation tool with no output schema. It does not describe the response format or edge-case behavior, but the core invocation requirements are well covered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by defining each parameter, including the exact structure of the assets list and the accepted field_type values. The example further clarifies the expected format, leaving little ambiguity.

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 action ('Add assets to an existing asset group') and clarifies it is a batch link operation, which distinguishes it from single-resource creation and from the sibling remove_asset_from_group. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 makes the intended use case clear: link multiple assets to an existing asset group. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the action is direct and the sibling set makes the distinction obvious.

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