layout_asset_create

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with a create operation. Description adds that it creates an asset but doesn't mention whether duplicate filenames are allowed or if it replaces existing ones, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loads the purpose and immediately clarifies usage constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With 4 required parameters, no output schema, and siblings like layout_asset_update and layout_asset_delete, the description covers the essentials. It defines the scope (text assets) and required inputs, but could mention output or post-conditions for full completeness.

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 description). Description adds meaning by listing required fields (filename, asset_type, data) and providing valid values for asset_type. This compensates for the low coverage, though not all parameters are fully explained.

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?

Clearly states it creates a layout_asset (CSS/JS/image/text). Lists required fields and distinguishes from image uploads, setting it apart from related tools.

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 says this tool is for text assets (CSS/JS/HTML fragments) and directs image uploads to the product_set_images tool, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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