asset_attach_prompt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that an existing recipe is replaced (overwrite behavior), but it omits whether the prior recipe is preserved in asset_recipe_history, whether the overwrite is reversible, and what permissions or state are required. There is mild tension between "replace" and destructiveHint=false, though a history-backed overwrite could justify the annotation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the overwrite behavior is stated up front. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the size is appropriate even though content is missing.

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 no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should explain what comes back (e.g., the updated asset) and how replacement interacts with recipe history. As written, an agent must guess at return behavior and the real effect of overwriting an existing recipe.

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 full burden of explaining both parameters. It only implies that "prompt" is the complete recipe text ("full prompt recipe") and that "assetId" is a saved asset; it says nothing about accepted formats, size limits, or whether prompt is raw text versus structured recipe data.

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?

"Attach or replace the full prompt recipe for a saved asset" states a concrete verb pair and resource, and the word "replace" signals overwrite semantics. It does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools that also touch asset content (asset_update_metadata, asset_recipe_history, asset_version_create), so an agent cannot fully separate them from the definition 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says whether to call this versus asset_update_metadata for metadata-only edits, or versus asset_version_create when the change should be versioned. No prerequisites are stated (that assetId must reference an existing, saved asset), and no conditions distinguish the attach case from the replace case.

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