manage_asset

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description adds the list of actions, most of which are mutating. However, it does not disclose that get_path is read-only, nor does it explain authorization needs or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence listing actions. Front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain how actions are selected, parameter dependencies, or what happens on success/failure. Leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description's role is reduced. It groups actions but does not map parameters to actions (e.g., which parameters are required for each action). The schema handles detail, but the description could add relational clarity.

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 it manages assets and lists specific actions (move, delete, rename, copy, create_folder, get_path), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by enumerating these actions, but does not explicitly contrast with other asset-related tools.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like add_asset_to_scene or asset_import. The description lists actions but does not advise on which action to choose based on task context.

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