manage_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that assets can be registered, managed, and set as defaults. However, it does not detail the range of actions (list, import, rename, etc.) or their implications, such as side effects or authorization needs. Some behavioral aspects are implicit but not fully 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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose, usage pattern, and default behavior. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters including an enum with 9 actions, the description only touches on registration and defaults. It omits explaining other actions like import, list, resolve, etc. While the schema covers actions, the description could provide a more complete overview. The lack of output schema is not compensated by description detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining the conceptual usage (reference by name, defaults) and the relationship with sibling tools. It provides semantic context beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on each parameter individually.

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 purpose: registering and managing reusable assets like logos, outros, intros, music, images. It explains the key benefit of referencing assets by name in create_clip/manage_reel instead of full paths, and mentions defaults. This differentiates it from sibling 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 implies usage context by stating assets are referenced by name in create_clip/manage_reel, indicating when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide conditions for choosing this tool over others. Clear context but lacks exclusions.

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