Add asset

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries useful extra weight: it discloses the accepted MIME/format whitelist and a 15 MB size ceiling, neither of which is in the annotations. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior for duplicate names or how failures (oversize, unsupported format) surface.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its purpose, then format and size constraints. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description sensibly implies an asset id is produced and can be referenced later. Combined with format/size limits and annotation-covered safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only edge-case behavior (duplicate names, error modes) is unaddressed.

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% (url, name, path, data_base64 all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond by constraining what those inputs may resolve to — only PNG/JPEG/WebP/GIF/SVG and WOFF2/WOFF/TTF/OTF files up to 15 MB — which meaningfully qualifies the url/path/data_base64 parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('stores') plus the resource ('logo, image, photo or font file') and the downstream payoff ('so slides and brand kits can use it by asset id'). This distinguishes it immediately from read-oriented siblings like list_assets or get_brand_kit without needing either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose statement — you call this when you need a logo/font available to slides or brand kits — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no statement of prerequisites (auth, ownership) or what to do when a file already exists.

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