Attach Asset

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

Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key side effect: it creates a linked copy rather than moving the original row. It also adds legacy URL behavior, role values, cost, and API-key requirements. It does not describe failure modes or output behavior, but the core semantics are clearly stated.

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 short and well-front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the operation and its main caveat, followed by compact role and legacy/cost information. Every sentence contributes practical information, though the role list is partially redundant with the schema.

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 tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, and low schema coverage, the description is only minimally sufficient. It explains the main operation and one parameter relationship but leaves key invocation details—entity_type/entity_id allowed values, metadata/asset_type semantics, and URL vs. asset_id precedence—incompletely specified. The output schema helps, but the overall context is not fully self-contained.

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 only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does explain asset_id vs. URL legacy behavior and role values briefly, but entity_type, entity_id, metadata, asset_type, and idempotency behavior are left under-explained. It also omits a valid schema enum value, 'photo', from its Roles list.

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 starts with an explicit verb and resource: 'Link an existing asset_id to another entity by creating a linked copy.' This is clearly distinct from upload_asset, update_asset, and archive_asset, and the clarifying clause 'does not move the original row' removes ambiguity about whether this is a move operation.

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?

It provides clear context for the intended use: linking an existing asset to an entity, creating a linked copy, and supporting a legacy URL path. It also notes API key and cost requirements. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use this tool or naming upload/update/archive as alternatives, so it is not fully explicit.

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