Create asset tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not explain what 'destructive' means for a tag creation, whether duplicates are rejected or overwritten, or how the optional Idempotency_Key relates to the non-idempotent annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme terseness is part of why other dimensions are thin rather than a structure problem in itself.

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?

With 6 parameters (including a nested payload union), zero required fields, no output schema, and a destructive/non-idempotent annotation profile, the description is far too thin. It never clarifies that a tag is created but not attached to any asset, nor addresses the confirm and Idempotency_Key semantics that an agent needs to call this safely.

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 the schema already documents name, account, confirm, payload, payload_file, and Idempotency_Key in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create asset tag') and scopes it to the authenticated user's fal Assets library, which cleanly separates it from read-oriented siblings like list_asset_tags. It does not name or contrast with update_asset_tag/delete_asset_tag, but the verb alone makes the intent unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to create a tag versus reusing an existing one, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the tag must later be assigned via assign_asset_tag to be useful), and no exclusion criteria. The only signal is the generic reference to the user's Assets library.

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