asset_relink

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the original hash must match exactly and that source/reference role is preserved, which are useful. However, it does not explain whether the existing asset record is overwritten, whether the file is moved or copied, what happens on hash mismatch, or what side effects occur beyond restoring the asset.

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 dense sentence that leads with the action and purpose and adds a key behavioral constraint at the end. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 mutation-like recovery operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves important invocation details unexplained: exact meaning of path, how the hash constraint is enforced, whether the original file is consumed, expected failure modes, and what the caller receives on success. It is adequate for tool selection but not for confident invocation.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It implies that 'path' is the recovery file but gives no explanation of 'asset_id' or 'project_id', no file path semantics, and no detail on how the exact original hash is provided or verified. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 ('Restore'), a resource ('missing/corrupt collected asset'), and the recovery method ('from a file with the exact original hash'). It also adds a distinguishing invariant, 'Keeps source/reference role unchanged,' which clearly separates it from general import or relink tools.

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 identifies the target scenario: a missing or corrupt collected asset that must be restored from a file. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the scenario is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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