markovo_asset_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: the URL is revocable, lives 60-600 seconds, and is a bearer token (implying anyone holding it gains access). It omits authentication requirements for minting the URL, rate limits, and what happens at expiry.

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 zero filler; the key constraints (revocable, duration range, single-image scope) all arrive immediately.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the essential nature of the result but leaves gaps: it does not say a URL string is returned, why all three parameters are optional, or how the returned URL relates to revoke/expiry handling.

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% across three parameters. The description accounts for expires_in_seconds (and merely restates the schema's own 60-600 bounds) and gestures at asset_path via 'one Bundle image', but job_id is never explained and the '^assets/' path constraint is unaddressed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a revocable ... bearer URL', with scope narrowed to 'one Bundle image'. This clearly separates it from markovo_asset_revoke (which removes such URLs) and markovo_convert_url, though it never names a sibling 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of its natural pairing with markovo_asset_revoke for cleanup, and no prerequisites. Usage is only weakly inferable from the word 'Create'.

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