spawn_asset_sync

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the operation is 'SLOW BY DESIGN' with expected duration, explains what it overcomes, and notes the absence of an asset API. It also implies account-wide scope and the authoritative nature of the sync, giving the agent a clear behavioral model.

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 well-structured and front-loaded. It opens with the core action, then explains value, performance, usage triggers, and underlying rationale. Every sentence adds meaningful context without redundancy or filler.

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's complexity (account-wide sync, slow, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, what it can see beyond local scans, performance expectations, when to run, and why it's necessary. No crucial context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but it provides context for the overall behavior that involves these parameters (e.g., account-wide sync). The schema descriptions suffice.

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 uses a specific verb ('Sync') plus resource ('asset bank') and method ('list every game you own, fetch each one's current server-side spec, and harvest the cdn/ assets'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling spawn_asset_scan by noting coverage of games without local checkout and assets added by teammates or Savi.

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 clearly states when to use: 'Run it once to populate an empty bank, and again when the other asset tools say the bank is stale.' It also contrasts with spawn_asset_scan, explaining what this tool covers that the scan cannot, giving an explicit alternative.

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