Import Asset

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: nothing is copied, the asset is available immediately, there is no storage charge, and consuming pods download from the source at start time. It also discloses the auth requirement (saved token/key id in `source_credentials`), an error-handling instruction, and the operation_id contract (reuse the preview ID, a new ID means a new operation, check `operation_status` after a timeout) — which meaningfully clarifies the annotated idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the core action and source formats before diving into side effects and the operation_id protocol; nearly every sentence carries new information. It is a dense multi-concern block, however, and the operation_id paragraph could be tightened or split for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are legitimately omitted, and the description covers the heavy concerns for a 9-parameter import: source shapes, credentials, subsetting, no-copy billing implications, and retry/idempotency protocol. Remaining gaps are the semantics of `workspace`, `name`, and `asset_type`, plus any pointer to how the resulting asset is then consumed via `assets`.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for the most consequential parameters: `source` formats, `paths` glob semantics, `revision` semantics, `hf_token_id`/`civitai_key_id` sourcing, and the `operation_id` lifecycle. It leaves `name`, `workspace`, and `asset_type` entirely unexplained, and doesn't reconcile the 'every write requires operation_id' claim with the schema marking it nullable/default null.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Link') plus the resource and its target type ('as an Asset Hub asset'), and enumerates the accepted source forms (HF repo 'owner/name' or URL, CivitAI URL, direct file URL). The follow-on clause 'so pods and tasks can use it as `input_assets`' makes the effect distinguishable from sibling tools like `assets`, `detect_model`, or `source_credentials`.

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?

Explains the operating context clearly: use this so pods/tasks can download the artifact, use `paths` globs to link a subset, `revision` to pin a branch/tag/commit, and `source_credentials` ids for private/gated sources. It gives no explicit when-not or named alternative tool (e.g., versus `assets` or `detect_model`), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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