generate_asset_alt_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool uses AI and saves to the alt_text field, but omits critical behavioral details for a mutation: whether existing alt text is overwritten, if any AI costs or credits are incurred, or if special permissions are required.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, with no unnecessary words. It earns every word and is highly scannable.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and side effect. It does not explain return values nor caveats like overwrite behavior, but these are not strictly required given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% for the only parameter, but the description is generic ('ID of the resource'). The tool description adds context that the id refers to the asset, which is helpful, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('asset') with a clear outcome ('saves to the alt_text field'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auto_tag_asset (tags) and run_asset_ai (generic AI) by focusing on accessibility alt text generation.

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 clearly implies usage: when you need alt text for an asset. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to understand when to use this tool versus generic update or AI tools.

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