Upload asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral: it does not explain idempotency/retry semantics for the exposed Idempotency_Key, what the confirm flag gates, or what happens to account/library state on success.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and target. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

This is a complex tool: 11 params, a nested payload object, three mutually exclusive body-input forms (flat flags vs payload vs payload_file), and no output schema. The description explains none of that, nor the confirm/idempotency semantics, leaving real gaps for an agent to resolve on its own.

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 11 parameters including the nested payload object and mutual-exclusion rules are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning, so 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?

States a specific verb (upload) and resource target (asset in the fal Assets library) for the authenticated user, which is clearer than a bare 'upload'. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling upload_file, which presumably targets storage rather than the asset library, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 mention of alternatives despite sibling overlap with upload_file, create_asset_character, and collection-assignment tools. The agent gets no signal about which upload path to pick or when this is preferred.

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