clear_asset_nsfw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention two key behavioral traits: it 'clears the moderation flag' and 're-indexes', which indicates a mutating action with a side effect. However, it does not discuss reversibility, permission requirements, or behavior if no flag exists, making it only partially transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Mark an NSFW detection as a false positive') followed by the concrete effects. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core action and a notable side effect (re-indexing). It lacks details on error conditions or permissions, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and primary behavior.

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 has 100% coverage but the parameter description 'ID of the resource' is generic. The tool description clarifies that the 'id' refers to the asset, adding meaning beyond the schema. This is sufficient for a single parameter tool, hence above the baseline of 3.

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's function with a specific verb ('Mark') and resource ('an NSFW detection as a false positive on an asset'). It also explains the concrete actions it performs ('clears the moderation flag and re-indexes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ignore_asset_unidentified_faces, which deal with faces rather than NSFW moderation flags.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: when an NSFW detection is identified as a false positive. It implicitly indicates this tool is for clearing false positives, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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