Create asset tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the tag lands in the authenticated user's library; it says nothing about the required confirm=true gate, permission requirements, or that creation is non-idempotent despite the Idempotency_Key field.

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 economy comes partly from omitting information rather than from tight editing.

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 mutation with six parameters, a nested payload union, and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the confirm gate, idempotency behavior, and payload-vs-flat-flag exclusivity. The rich schema and annotations carry most of that burden, so it is adequate but clearly incomplete.

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% and all six parameters are documented in the schema, including the payload/payload_file mutual exclusivity and the confirm requirement. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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?

States a specific verb (create) and resource (asset tag) with a clear scope qualifier (the authenticated user's fal Assets library). It implicitly separates itself from update_asset_tag/delete_asset_tag by verb, but never names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to use this versus create_asset_collection or set_asset_tags_for_asset, or what prerequisites exist.

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