Where a library asset is used

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint=true by disclosing non-obvious semantics: replaced clips are excluded, and a deleted asset's layer is skipped when a template is applied. These behavioral details materially affect how an agent interprets results before a destructive action.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the return shape and then the actionable caveat. The inline return-shape block is dense but justified since no output schema exists; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the full response shape (projects with nested clips/slots/via/overlays/music, and templates with layers) and the caveats that affect interpretation. An agent has everything needed to call it and read the result correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter, and the schema already documents it fully (id from search_assets), so baseline applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema states.

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 resource (a library item) and precisely what is reported: its use as intro, outro, overlay or music on projects and clips, plus layer templates. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_clip or search_assets, which retrieve content rather than reverse-lookup usage.

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 closing instruction 'Check before deleting one' gives an explicit trigger for calling this tool, implicitly routing agents here before delete_asset/purge_asset. It does not explicitly name those siblings or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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