Register Image Asset

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

Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true. The description adds a useful constraint ('Does not publish media') but does not explain the actual side effects of staging (e.g., where records are stored, whether files are copied) or any prerequisites. It adds some context but not rich behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Stage image-generation artifacts'), and every clause earns its place. The second sentence provides a clear boundary without wasted words.

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?

With 7 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the purpose and a key constraint but omits operational context such as how response_format affects output, what 'staging' entails (e.g., database write, file copy), and when to use it in a workflow. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description introduces the ambiguous phrase 'optional local copied asset' that does not map cleanly to any schema parameter (likely referring to 'source' or 'suggested_homebase_folder'), and it only lists a subset of fields. This could confuse an agent selecting parameters, and the description adds little value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to stage image-generation artifacts by recording prompt, source chat, usage-rights note, and optional local copied asset. It explicitly differentiates from publishing by stating 'Does not publish media,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_image_asset and propose_notion_page.

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?

The description implies use for recording/staging image artifacts before publication, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_image_asset or propose_notion_page. It gives clear context ('stage', 'does not publish') but no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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