validate_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only validation (no creation or mutation), and outlines the return structure (compatible, off-size, incompatible channels). It does not mention side effects, auth, or rate limits, but this is acceptable for a non-destructive validation tool.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence clearly states the action and scope, the second the output. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (compatible, off-size with suggestions, incompatible channels). The input schema is fully documented. It could mention edge cases (e.g., missing duration for video) but is otherwise sufficient for a validation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating the tool validates 'image or video asset' (linking to type parameter), but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions (e.g., for filterCategory or duration). The description is sufficient but not enriching.

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 the specific verb 'validate' and resource 'image or video asset' against '50+ advertising platform specs'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_resize and resize_for_platform, which focus on resizing, and get_platform_specs, which retrieves specs. No ambiguity.

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 usage for checking asset compatibility before resizing (by mentioning 'fix suggestions'), but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not conditions or alternative references.

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