consolidate_assets

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

The description discloses the key behavior of replacing references from source assets to a target asset, which adds value. However, with no annotations provided, it does not mention whether source assets are deleted, if the operation is reversible, or any other side effects, leaving a transparency gap for a mutating tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose and behavior without unnecessary 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?

The tool is simple with two well-documented parameters, but the description does not cover important contextual aspects such as return values, source asset fate, or potential side effects. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both target_path and source_paths. The description itself adds no additional parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function with a specific verb ('Consolidate') and resource ('duplicate assets'), and distinguishes it from siblings like delete_asset, rename_asset, and duplicate_asset by explaining the reference replacement behavior.

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 usage context is implied (consolidating duplicate assets), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_asset or rename_asset, nor any mention of prerequisites or workflows.

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