my_assets_import

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about ownership and target project, but does not disclose what actually happens during import, such as whether a duplicate is created, whether the original remains in the user library, or what errors may occur.

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 is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It front-loads the key facts: the operation is an import, the asset is owned by the current user, and the destination is the current project.

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?

For a mutating import tool with no output schema and only basic annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of required parameters, what the tool returns, prerequisites such as discovering asset IDs, or how this relates to sibling tools like my_assets_search, leaving important gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it 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?

The schema documents 'id' and 'folder' as Asset IDs, but the required 'name' parameter has no description, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. With only 67% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for this ambiguity but does not clarify whether 'name' is the source name, the new project-local name, or something else.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import'), a resource ('an asset owned by the current user'), and a destination ('the current project'), making the tool's function clear. This distinguishes it from related siblings like my_assets_search, sketchfab_import, upload_assets, and create_assets, since only this tool imports an already user-owned asset into the current project.

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 implies the appropriate use case: an agent should call this when it needs to bring an asset from the current user's own collection into the current project. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools are alternatives, such as my_assets_search for finding assets first or create_assets for creating new ones.

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