shelf_kit_add_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description usefully confirms merge-not-replace behavior, which is real added value, but says nothing about partial failures, quantity conflicts, or return behavior for a write 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?

A single tight sentence with the key additive constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though perhaps too terse given the tool's 4-parameter complexity.

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 4-parameter mutation with a nested quantities object, no output schema, and half the parameters undocumented in the schema, the description leaves out important details such as quantity semantics, orgId defaults, and result/error behavior.

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 50%: kitId and assetIds carry no descriptions, and only 'quantities' is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., quantity semantics, whether quantities overrides defaults) to compensate for that gap.

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 (add) and resource (assets to an existing kit), and the parenthetical 'existing contents are kept' clarifies the additive scope. It distinguishes itself in spirit from shelf_kit_remove_assets, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus shelf_kit_action, shelf_create_kit, or shelf_kit_remove_assets. The only usage-adjacent signal is the additive note, which must be inferred rather than stated.

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