assets-add-google-font-to-asset-pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It describes the action as adding a configuration, implying a write operation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing fonts, asset pack modification limits, or success signals). The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first defines the action and target, the second explains the necessity. No extraneous information, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (no output schema, 4 parameters fully described in schema), the description is sufficient. It covers the core functionality and prerequisite context via parameter descriptions. Minor omission: it does not mention confirmation or error handling, but overall complete enough for a straightforward task.

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 input schema already fully documents each parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Add a Google Font configuration') and the resource ('asset pack'), and specifies the necessity for using the font in scene text. It distinguishes itself from sibling font tools like 'assets-get-google-font-families' and 'assets-get-google-font-info' which are for retrieving information, not adding.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool: 'required if you want to use the font in a scene text.' It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides enough differentiation.

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