Upload asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real context beyond that: provider scopes/locks/credits are consumed, confirmation is mandatory before execution, and the call may only be submitted once. It still omits failure handling and whether the response is synchronous, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the endpoint leads and the operational constraints follow. The 'POST /v5/assets' clause is somewhat redundant with the tool name, costing it the top score.

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 destructive, non-idempotent write with no output schema, the description covers confirmation and credit/lock implications reasonably, but says nothing about what is returned (asset id, job handle) or how partial/async completion is signalled. Account selection behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 100%, so all four parameters (account, confirm, asset_file, content_type) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the 'confirm' requirement, adding marginal meaning beyond the structured fields — the baseline 3 applies.

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 via the endpoint 'POST /v5/assets', and the tool name makes the action clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent write endpoints (create_image, create_instant_url) or explain what an 'asset' is in this system, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

'Mandatory confirmation before provider execution; one submission only' implies procedural usage but never states when to pick this tool over the other upload/create siblings. No prerequisites, no when-not conditions, no named alternatives.

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