shelf_create_asset

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds one operational constraint — that category/location/tag/custom-field values are IDs that must be resolved first — but says nothing about permissions, whether the asset is immediately visible/claimable, or what happens on failure.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Efficient, though terse enough that it leaves obvious gaps rather than being a model of well-budgeted conciseness.

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 9-parameter write tool with no output schema and only 33% schema coverage, the description is thin: it never mentions the one required field (title), the orgId default, or what a successful call yields. Annotations and the schema cover enough that an agent can still call it, but the definition is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It partially does by naming four of the parameters (categories, locations, tags, custom fields) and clarifying they take IDs, but title, valuation, description, and categoryId/locationId semantics remain undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('Create a new asset'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from shelf_update_asset and shelf_delete_asset in the sibling list. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, but the verb alone is enough to route correctly.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite: look up IDs via shelf_list_categories/locations/tags/custom_fields before calling. This names four specific alternative tools and the condition that selects them. It omits any when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., for bulk creation or kits), so it falls short of a 5.

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