asset_replace

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

Discloses that the operation creates a new asset, leaves the old one in place, and returns both ids. Consistent with annotations (non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent). Does not detail authorization or rate limits but covers the key behavioral trait 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?

Two concise sentences: first states the purpose and workaround, second details outcome and next steps. Front-loaded, no wasted words.

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 documents the return (both ids), explains the workaround, and provides manual cleanup steps. Sufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and follow up.

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 clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema (repeats the filename constraints). Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema already 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?

Explicitly states 'Rename a layout_asset by creating a new one with the desired filename' – a specific verb, resource, and workaround for API limitation. Distinguishes from sibling tools like layout_asset_update, which cannot change filenames.

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?

Clearly explains when to use (when a filename change is needed, because PUT is rejected) and gives post-usage instruction (delete old asset manually after updating templates). Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' but context implies alternatives are inappropriate.

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