import_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that textures tile by default, that hdris/photos cover the canvas, the allowed fit and texture_map values, and that the return includes the layer plus photo attribution. It omits permission requirements and what happens to existing layers or how parent/opacity interact with the new layer.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the parenthetical enumerations of fit and texture_map values are compact. The workflow sentence is slightly dense but every clause adds usable information.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the asset-type-dependent behavior and return value but leaves several parameters (parent, opacity, resolution, name) undocumented. It is adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains tile_size, texture_map, and fit well, and implies kind via the textures/hdris/photos distinction, but leaves id, name, parent, opacity, blend_mode, and resolution entirely unexplained.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Put a search_assets result on a new layer'), which both names the operation and ties it to the sibling that produces its input. An agent can distinguish it from import_image or import_image_from_url without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly routes the agent from search_assets into this tool and gives a concrete follow-up workflow (import, then update_layer with clipped=true and overlay/multiply above the shape). It does not explicitly contrast with import_image or import_image_from_url, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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