modify_bundle_asset

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

Annotations already signal mutation, destructiveness, and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns accepted and rejected IDs and rejects invalid asset types and duplicates. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes either operational meaning or behavioral expectations.

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?

The description covers the operation and return behavior, and annotations provide the safety profile. However, with no output schema and low parameter schema coverage, the description leaves ambiguity about what each parameter represents, especially id and the contents of add/remove.

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 only 33%, and the tool description does not compensate for the gap. It does not explain what id refers to or that the add/remove arrays should contain asset IDs; it only hints at 'project assets' generically.

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 a specific operation, 'Add or remove project assets from a bundle', which distinguishes it from generic siblings like modify_assets or delete_assets. It also adds expected behavior by mentioning accepted/rejected IDs and validation rules.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as modify_assets or delete_assets, and no explicit exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage solely from the operation itself, which is not enough for confident tool selection.

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