asset_replace

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. The description fully explains the non-destructive yet mutating behavior: creates a new asset, leaves old intact, and requires manual cleanup. No contradiction; adds significant context beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: explains the workaround, states return values, and provides follow-up instructions. No superfluous information; every sentence is essential and well-organized.

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 no output schema, the description explains what is returned (both old and new ids) and the complete workflow. Given the complexity of the workaround, the description is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool renames a layout_asset by creating a new one, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling layout_asset_update by explaining that Voog API rejects PUT with filename changes, making this the correct tool for renaming.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (to rename a layout_asset) and provides clear post-usage instructions: old asset is left in place and must be manually deleted after updating templates. This contrasts with layout_asset_update, which cannot change filenames.

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