replace_asset

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a small behavioral nuance by emphasizing that it updates references rather than modifying or deleting the asset itself, but it does not explain the scope of the replacement, reversibility, or side effects beyond that.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the operation. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail, and the key distinction ('references') is front-loaded.

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 simple two-parameter tool with annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. While it does not mention return values or edge cases like whether assetId and replacementId must differ, these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema only describes both parameters generically as 'Asset ID', while the description clarifies their roles: assetId is the source asset whose references are replaced, and replacementId is the target asset. This added semantic meaning helps an agent correctly map values to the two required parameters despite weak schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and a precise resource ('references to one asset with another asset'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_assets, move_assets, or modify_assets. It tells the agent exactly what operation is performed without ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_asset_references, delete_assets, or duplicate_assets. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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