shelf_set_asset_image

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

Annotations already establish this is a write with openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds format constraints, but omits whether an existing main image is replaced/overwritten, any size limits, and permission requirements — meaningful gaps for an upload 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?

One tight sentence that front-loads the action ('Upload a local image file') and immediately qualifies accepted formats and target. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 3-parameter tool with one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations covering replacement semantics, the description is workable but leaves open what happens to a pre-existing main image and how failures surface. It covers enough to attempt the call but not enough to predict its effects.

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 coverage is 67%: filePath and orgId are described in the schema, but assetId is bare in both places. The description adds format details for the file (jpg/png/webp) and clarifies that assetId targets the asset's main image, which is modest but real added value.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Upload a local image file... as the asset's main image') and constrains accepted formats (jpg/png/webp). It clearly reads as an image-setter rather than a generic asset mutation, though it does not name or contrast with siblings like shelf_update_asset.

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 action itself: set the primary image for an existing asset. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative (e.g., general asset update), no prerequisite the asset must already exist, and no stated exclusions, so guidance is only inferred.

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