Upload asset

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is reduced. It adds a genuine but small piece of context: the target scope is the authenticated user's own library. It says nothing about the confirm flag, retries, or what the destructive behavior entails.

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 wasted words, and the destination scope is stated up front. It is concise, though arguably concise at the expense of the detail this tool's complexity demands.

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 11 parameters, a nested payload object, union body inputs, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is materially incomplete. It never addresses the required confirm=true gate, the payload/payload_file exclusivity rule, or idempotency handling – all of which an agent needs to invoke this mutation correctly.

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 every one of the 11 parameters is already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, syntax, or interaction rules (e.g., payload vs flat-body mutual exclusivity) beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Upload asset') plus a destination ('fal Assets library'), so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling upload_file or from add_asset_to_collection, leaving the asset-vs-file boundary to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to prefer upload_asset over upload_file or add_asset_to_collection for a given input.

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