store_asset

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds real value on top: the staged output is removed after delivery succeeds, downloads read from that bucket, and it requires storage:write plus owner/admin. It does not describe failure behavior or whether re-invocation with a new destination is permitted.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then side effects, then permissions. No filler, though the permission sentence could be folded into a prerequisite clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry return/result semantics, and it only partially does (downloads read from that bucket). It covers the destructive side effect and auth well, but leaves parameter meaning and error/retry behavior undocumented for a mutation 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% and the description explains none of the three parameters. The optional 'key' parameter is completely opaque, and asset_id vs destination_id roles are only inferable from the prose nouns, not defined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: choosing a verified destination for an existing watermarked asset. An agent can distinguish this from verify_storage_destination or list_storage_destinations, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Verified customer destination' implies the destination must already be verified, which implicitly routes the agent away from unverified ones. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites stated as conditions, and no named alternative for comparison.

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