asset_labels

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds that generation is bounded, must use explicitly supplied IDs, and returns base64 file content suitable for saving. It does not cover auth requirements or output size limits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return payload, then exclusions. No filler, and the ordering puts the key constraint where an agent will read it first.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description handles purpose, bounds, and exclusions well, but leaves material gaps: label_name's meaning and asset_ids_json's format are undocumented anywhere, which matters for correct invocation.

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% for two parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It hints that asset IDs are explicitly supplied and bounded, but never clarifies the JSON-string format of asset_ids_json, and label_name is not mentioned at all. Half the parameters remain semantically 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 description states a specific verb ('Generate'), resource ('printable Snipe-IT asset-label PDF'), and scope ('for explicitly supplied asset IDs'). It is immediately distinguishable from lookup-oriented siblings like assets_search and catalog_search.

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 gives an explicit when-not clause: 'Do not use for ordinary asset lookup or for unbounded label generation.' That clearly routes the agent away from misuse. It stops short of naming the specific alternative tool for lookup or unbounded generation.

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