manage_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., mutating state), permission requirements, or idempotence. Actions like insert and export have different impacts but are not described.

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 a single sentence that efficiently lists the available actions. It is concise and front-loaded with purpose, though it could benefit from structuring actions into groups for clarity.

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's complexity (16 parameters, multiple actions with different requirements), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the overall workflow, when to use each action, or how actions relate to each other. The schema covers parameter details but lacks a high-level narrative.

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 100%, and the schema provides detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists specific actions (insert, info, search, search_insert, insert_free, insert_package, export) that clearly define what the tool does with assets. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying asset management.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The description implies asset-related operations but provides no exclusion criteria or context for choosing this tool over siblings like manage_audio or manage_animation.

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