asset_files

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already convey. Annotations mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true), and while the description mentions 'delete' as an operation, it adds no extra detail such as whether deletions are irreversible or if special permissions are required. The return format is also redundant given the existing output schema.

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 well-structured with a clear title and bulleted operations, and it is concise without unnecessary fluff. The 'Returns' line is redundant with the output schema but does not significantly detract from readability. Overall, it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 (6 parameters, destructive action) and rich schema/annotations, the description provides a sufficient high-level overview but lacks deeper contextual details such as prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist), potential side effects of uploads, or behavior when actions fail. The schema covers parameter specifics, so the description is adequate but not complete.

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 does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely lists high-level operations and returns a generic dict, leaving the schema to explain parameter details like file_id being required for download/delete.

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 as 'Manage file attachments for assets' and enumerates the specific operations (upload, list, download, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_operations or manage_assets, which handle broader asset lifecycle or CRUD operations, not file attachments.

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 provides clear context by listing the four operations, making it evident when to use this tool (e.g., uploading files to an asset, downloading attached files). However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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