layout_asset_create

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

Annotations are all false (readOnly, idempotent, destructive), so they provide little. The description compensates by disclosing an important encoding behavior: `data` crosses a JSON boundary, literal \uXXXX escapes arrive decoded, and raw U+2028/U+2029 and C0 controls are refused as a fingerprint of that issue. This adds real behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not cover other aspects like response format or side effects.

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 dense but not overly long. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides encoding warnings, alternative tools, and parameter guidance. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'TEXT content only' and later 'this tool is for text assets'), and the image-upload protocol sentence is wordy, but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a create tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers key context: constraints, parameter requirements, encoding pitfalls, and alternatives. It does not mention the `site` parameter despite it being required in the schema, and it doesn't state what the successful response looks like. Still, it is reasonably complete for an AI agent to use 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 only 25% (only `data` has a description). The description adds value by listing `asset_type` enum values, explaining the encoding constraint on `data`, and stating required fields. However, it entirely omits `site` and gives no semantic context for `filename`. It partially compensates for the low schema coverage but not completely.

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 opens with 'Create a layout_asset' – a specific verb and resource – and immediately clarifies it is TEXT content only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like layouts_push and layout_asset_upload. It explicitly states the tool is for text assets (CSS/JS/HTML fragments), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use for text assets, avoid for images (use product_set_images), avoid for binary uploads (use layout_asset_upload), and avoid for tracked file deployment (use layouts_push). It names the exact alternative tools, making the decision tree clear.

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