spellcheck_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and input modes, but does not disclose whether the asset is modified, what the output or side effects are, any permission requirements, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely triggers a background check.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and then concisely explains the two input modes. No superfluous words or repetition.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and required parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits what the spellcheck returns (results stored or returned?), any prerequisites like website permissions, and the role of the language parameter. More context about the workflow would be helpful.

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?

While schema coverage is 100% with basic parameter descriptions, the tool description adds higher-level meaning by explaining the two usage modes (assetId vs. websiteId+url/html), which the individual parameter descriptions do not convey. This helps an agent understand the logical grouping.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run spellcheck' and the resource 'asset', and explicitly distinguishes between using an existing assetId or creating a new asset via websiteId+url/html. This differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_asset or get_asset, none of which perform spellcheck.

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?

It provides clear conditional guidance on when to use each input mode (existing asset vs. create new), but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention any alternative tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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