Assets Create

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety basics. It adds some behavioral context by mentioning the asset becomes 'reusable' and returns an id for use in future operations. However, it omits details like URL validation, file type requirements, persistence scope, or any side effects. The contribution beyond annotations is modest but present.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains zero filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the example URL source, and the output usage. This is an ideal concise structure.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint=true, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return object structure (only mentions an 'id'), does not clarify the 'type' enum, and provides no guidance on optional fields or project/visibility scoping. Given the complexity and lack of schema descriptions, the description leaves significant gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and there are 12 parameters, yet the description only explains the 'url' parameter (via example source). The required 'type' parameter and all other optional parameters (e.g., name, size, visibility, projectId) are left entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, providing almost no semantic meaning for the vast majority of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Register a media URL as a reusable asset' with a specific verb ('register') and resource ('media URL'). It also explains the expected outcome (returns an asset id) and differentiates from siblings like assets_get, assets_delete, and assets_update. The use cases (generation input, voice-clone sample) further clarify its purpose.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: when you have a public URL or the URL returned from assets_create-upload-url. It implies the workflow of creating an upload URL first, then registering it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools like upload-media or open-upload-widget, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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