add_assets_to_upload

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states 'add', which implies mutation, but does not clarify whether assets are appended or replaced, duplicate handling, required session state, or permissions. This is minimal for a mutating operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but the description lacks contextual information about the upload workflow, prerequisites, or return value. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides only the bare minimum needed to understand the operation.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters ('Upload session GUID' and 'Asset IDs to add') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Add assets to an upload session' uses a specific verb ('Add'), resource ('assets'), and target ('upload session'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_asset_to_collection or add_assets_to_group by clearly scoping to upload sessions.

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 relative to alternatives like create_upload_session or set_upload_done. The agent cannot infer the workflow context (e.g., after creating a session, before finalizing it) from the description alone.

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