consolidate_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that references are replaced but does not state whether source assets are deleted, kept, or otherwise modified, nor any side effects (e.g., if target assets are overwritten). For a potentially destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It contains no filler and every word contributes to understanding the action.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the full impact, such as whether source assets are removed, whether the target is permanently modified, and if there are any constraints (e.g., related packages). The current description leaves this ambiguous, making it incomplete for an operation that could have significant consequences.

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%, with both parameters clearly described in the schema (target_path: 'Target asset path to keep', source_paths: 'Source asset paths to consolidate into target'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Consolidate duplicate assets' and specifies the mechanism: 'replace references from source assets to a target asset.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fix_redirectors (which fixes broken references) and import_asset (which imports new assets). However, it could be slightly more explicit about the scope (e.g., all duplicates in the project) but is adequate.

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 when to use this tool (when there are duplicate assets to merge) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites like whether the source and target must be in the same package. The intended context is implied but not spelled out.

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