add_certified_asset_node

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: it auto-finds empty space and lays nodes out in a column, and it rejects non-certified assets. It stops short of noting duplicate handling or interaction with the existing canvas, but it earns credit beyond the structured fields.

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 no filler; the action and the auto-layout behavior are front-loaded, and the input constraint is stated last as a clear boundary.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations plus a fully-covered schema carry the rest. The description covers purpose and constraint adequately, though it omits how this fits the broader certified-asset workflow (groups, uploads).

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%, so the schema already documents project, asset_ids, display_names and allow_duplicate, including defaults and pairing behavior. The description adds only the 'certified' constraint, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: placing certified assets (images/videos) onto the canvas with auto-positioning in a column. It also scopes the input to 'certified' assets, which helps separate it from generic node creation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_video_node, which also add nodes.

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 line '只接受「已认证」的素材' acts as a constraint implying when this tool is (and isn't) appropriate, but there is no explicit routing to alternatives such as upload_certified_image/video for uncertified assets. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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