asset_operations

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive operation. The description adds semantic details like 'restore a soft-deleted asset' and 'mark as audited,' which are helpful. Yet it does not disclose prerequisites, side effects, or whether actions are reversible, and it repeats the return type that is also covered by the 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 brief introduction, a bulleted list of operations, and a concise return section. Every sentence provides useful context without redundancy or filler.

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 rich input schema and presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's core purpose and operation types. It lacks explicit mapping between actions and their required data objects (e.g., checkout_data is required for checkout), but the schema's required fields provide that. Overall, it is adequately complete for a dispatch 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter details beyond naming the operations; it mentions checkout targets (user, location, asset) which maps to the enum, but does not explain the action-to-data-object relationships.

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 a specific verb phrase 'Perform state operations on assets' and enumerates four distinct operations (checkout, checkin, audit, restore), which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools focused on asset files, labels, maintenance, and licenses. It precisely defines the tool's scope.

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 operation list implies the tool is for state-changing actions on assets, and the descriptions of each operation (e.g., 'check out an asset to a user, location, or another asset') clarify appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for agents comparing with manage_assets.

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