spawn_asset_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a non-obvious constraint: names are permanent ('cannot re-roll a name') and only this tool records which name is a bad replacement. It also hints at a temporal caveat (write description while visible). However, it does not disclose side-effects like whether fields are updated or replaced (schema says tags replace, but not in description), or if the tool triggers asset generation. This is partial transparency, not full.

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?

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: function, name-handle explanation, permanence rationale, and timing advice. It is concise, readable, and avoids redundant repetition of schema parameter descriptions.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives sufficient context for selection and invocation: what it does, when to use it, and a critical behavioral constraint. The schema already documents parameter semantics, so the description doesn't need to enumerate them. Remaining gaps include how updates/merging work for existing notes and what the return value is, but these are not essential for an agent to correctly call the tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'name' parameter (usable in place of path everywhere) and for 'replacedBy' (explains the 'wrong thing' information gap), but these mostly rephrase schema descriptions. No new syntax or format details are added beyond what the schema already provides, so the description adds marginal value.

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 opens with a clear verb list ('Name, categorize, describe or judge') on the resource 'asset in the bank', and explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it can annotate paths not yet scanned. It also frames the unique value proposition (a persistent handle usable across all asset tools), making it immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from scan/sync/search/preview.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you can still see the asset ('Write the description while you can still see the asset') and for paths that have not been scanned yet. It gives context that names become reusable handles and that recording 'wrong thing' is only possible here. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the sibling list and the stated purpose make the usage context sufficiently clear.

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