inkbolt_asset_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the store is immutable, source bytes and existing stored bytes are untouched, alpha and source/profile hashes are retained, and unsupported semantics fail explicitly rather than silently coercing. It does not address permissions, workspace/store defaults, or re-import behavior.

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?

Purpose and format scope are front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information (format scope, color-policy semantics, hash/alpha retention, untagged policy requirement, non-destruction, failure mode). Sentencing is dense and jargon-heavy with phrases like 'declared RGB ICC input profiles', but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers input formats, color-policy behavior, hash/alpha retention, immutability and failure semantics. Remaining gaps are modest: no statement on whether a re-import overwrites or deduplicates an existing stored asset, and no mention of workspace store defaults for store_root.

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?

Coverage is 60%, so the schema does not fully carry the load. The description supplies the semantics the schema omits: what convert_srgb means for ICC input profiles, that untagged samples force an explicit color_policy choice, and that source/profile hashes and alpha are preserved. store_root and response_format remain undocumented in the description, though their schema descriptions partially cover them.

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?

Specific verb (Read ... into an immutable image store) plus an explicit resource and scope: local PNG/JPEG/TIFF/BMP/TGA/single-frame GIF files. The format enumeration inherently separates it from the sibling inkbolt_font_import, so an agent can route on the description alone.

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?

States the operating condition clearly (explicit local sources, unsupported semantics fail) and gives conditional policy guidance: convert_srgb for embedded/declared ICC input, and an explicit policy required for untagged samples. It stops short of naming when to prefer this tool over an alternative or any exclusion, so it is context without alternatives rather than full routing guidance.

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