add_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Register' implies some state change or side effect, but the description does not disclose whether this mutates data, requires authentication, what the response looks like, or what side effects occur. For a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 technically short at four words, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. For a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, this brevity is a defect. There is no structure, no critical information front-loaded – nothing that earns the words' place.

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?

Completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity: 5 parameters, 2 required, an enum type, no output schema, and no annotations. An agent cannot determine what 'register' means operationally, what parameter formats are expected, what success/failure looks like, or how this differs from ingest_asset. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is provided.

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 must compensate for undocumented parameters. With 5 parameters (asset_id, type, uri, color, duration), the description provides no information about any of them – not even which are required, what formats are expected, or what the type enum represents beyond the schema. The description adds zero value over the raw schema.

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 verb ('Register') and a resource ('source asset'), so there is a minimal verb+resource pairing. However, 'register' is vague and offers no differentiation from the sibling tool 'ingest_asset' – an agent cannot tell whether these are the same operation, complementary operations, or mutually exclusive alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool. With siblings like ingest_asset, add_track, and add_clip present, the description gives the agent no basis for choosing add_asset over its alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are provided.

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