Favorite asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond the schema by explaining that unresolved references are materialized before favorite state is added, but it never explains why this read-like action is flagged destructive or how idempotency behaves on retry.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key input expectation. There is little waste, though the materialization clause is slightly dense for a single sentence.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits any mention of the confirm flag, the payload_file/payload mutual exclusion, and the idempotency key, relying entirely on the schema to carry those. The core 'favorite an asset' intent is covered, but the mutation-safety context an agent needs is not.

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 account, confirm, payload, vector_id, request_id, payload_file and Idempotency_Key. The description only echoes the request_id/vector_id choice and adds no format, mutual-exclusion, or size constraints beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Favorite') and resource ('an asset'), which distinguishes it from the many sibling mutation tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives like favorite_asset_character or unfavorite_asset, but the resource noun is clear enough to separate it from the collection/character variants.

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?

The description gives an implicit usage cue ('Provide a request ID or vector ID'), implying it is used when you have one of those identifiers. It offers no when-not guidance, no mention of the confirm flag or prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives.

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