reimport_assets

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that this is a mutating operation. The description adds that the tool returns succeeded/failed entries, but doesn't disclose more about what the pipeline overwrites or changes.

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?

A single sentence that immediately conveys action, scope, and return behavior. Every word earns its place, and the description is easy to parse with no filler.

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?

Despite destructive annotations and a complex settings object, the description gives no guidance on expected side effects, settings semantics, or result format. With no output schema, the promised 'succeeded and failed entries' needs more detail to be actionable.

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 0%, so the description bears the burden of explaining parameters. It only hints that 'existing source assets' maps to the ids parameter; the large settings object with ~20 fields is entirely unexplained, leaving agents without meaningful guidance for those options.

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-resource pair ('re-run the import pipeline') and clearly scopes it to 'existing source assets', which distinguishes it from create/upload/import tools. It also states the outcome ('return succeeded and failed entries'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

'Existing source assets' provides clear context that this tool is for re-processing already-imported assets, not for creating or uploading new ones. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer when it applies.

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