asset_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the asset is immutable and that hashing/analysis occurs, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing assets are overwritten), required permissions, error handling, or the return value. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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 compact: two sentences, with the core action in the first sentence and a constraint in the second. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the second sentence is tangential to the primary purpose.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected path format, how the role affects processing, what happens on conflict, or what the tool returns. An agent would need to guess or inspect other tools to safely invoke this.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. It does not clarify what 'path' should point to, how 'project_id' is used, or the implications of each 'role' value beyond listing them. The description adds almost no value beyond the bare 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 states a specific action ('Copy') and a specific resource ('immutable source/reference/artwork into the project'), and mentions additional behaviors (hash and analyze). This is clear enough to distinguish from generic import tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like project_import or asset_relink.

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 includes a constraint ('Reference audio is forbidden as render input') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where another tool should be preferred, nor does it state prerequisites or typical use cases.

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