layout_asset_create

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive or idempotent. The description adds that it is for text assets only, but lacks details on side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or return values, relying partly on 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?

The description is extremely concise, using two sentences and a parenthetical list. Every part adds value without redundancies. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 4 required params, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides essential purpose and usage boundaries but omits details like return values, error handling, or examples, making it adequate but not complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 25% (only 'data' has a description), the description compensates by listing required fields and enumerating asset_type values. However, it does not describe 'site' or 'filename' formats, leaving gaps.

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 creates a layout_asset (CSS/JS/image), lists required fields, and provides the asset_type enum. It distinguishes from image uploads, making purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises against using this tool for image uploads, directing to an alternative (product_set_images). However, it does not contrast with other sibling tools like layout_asset_update or asset_replace, which share similar domains.

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