set_asset_text

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

The description states 'Overwrite the full contents,' which implies destructive replacement of existing text, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This directly contradicts the annotation and obscures the irreversible impact on prior content. No additional behavioral nuance about side effects or reversibility is provided.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, scope, and target asset types appear immediately, and every word adds value.

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 schema and idempotentHint cover the basic invocation surface, and the operation is simple. However, the destructiveHint contradiction leads the description incomplete on behavioral safety, and the lack of alternative routing leaves selection ambiguous.

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%: assetId and text are already clearly documented with 'Text-based asset id' and 'Full replacement contents.' The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a specific action ('Overwrite'), the full-content scope, and enumerates supported asset types, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling set_script_text, which overlaps in the 'script' case, but the resource listing is otherwise distinctive.

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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as set_script_text, get_asset_text, or modify_assets. The asset-type list implies a use case, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons.

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