create_asset

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: this mutates control-plane config and the tool is protected/disabled by default. It stops short of saying what that means in practice — whether the call errors, requires enabling first, or needs specific permissions — and says nothing about duplicate-code behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with the creation semantics first and the operational caveat second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 and the parameters are fully documented, so the remaining gaps are behavioral. For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should clarify the practical impact of "protected and disabled by default" and how failure modes surface, which it leaves ambiguous.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the "omitted leaves untitled/unclassified" behavior. The description mirrors that and adds only the mild constraint that assetClass must reference an existing class, so it adds little beyond the structured data.

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 specific verb+resource ("Create an asset") and enumerates the three inputs it accepts, so the agent knows exactly what gets produced. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from update_asset or delete_asset, relying on the name alone for that distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus update_asset (e.g., if the asset may already exist) or what prerequisites are needed. The sentence about being "protected and disabled by default" hints at a constraint but never says what the caller should do about it.

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