assets_put

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

Describes the upload behavior (direct-to-S3), size limits, public vs private visibility effects, immutable URL generation, and detailed image processing (variants, blurhash). It also covers metadata and EXIF policy. No annotations exist, so the description fully shoulders the burden.

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 and informative, though slightly lengthy. Each sentence adds value, covering uploading modes, image details, and metadata. Minor redundancy could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains all key behaviors, including image processing, immutability, and metadata constraints. It even references SDK docs for full shape, leaving little ambiguity.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical context: size limits for local_path vs content, the effect of immutable on URLs, the image processing return fields (width_px, height_px, blurhash, variants), and the AssetRef shape. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 uploads a blob to project storage via direct-to-S3, with distinct modes for local file or inline content. It distinguishes from sibling tools like assets_get, assets_ls, assets_rm, and assets_sign.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use local_path vs content based on size limits, and explains the use of immutable for cache-busting. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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