manage_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It discloses the default-asset behavior, which is valuable, but does not mention more complex behaviors like destructive actions (unregister) or details of import vs. local file registration. The schema lists actions but not their implications, leaving a partial gap.

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 compact and well-organized. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, then provides practical usage context in the second. Every sentence adds meaningful information without waste.

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?

The description explains the core concept of reusable assets and their referencing, but does not elaborate on the actions such as 'resolve', 'import_url' vs 'import', or the response/return values. Given the schema lists nine actions with no per-action descriptions, the description only partially prepares an agent to invoke arbitrary actions 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'name' parameter's role in referencing assets, but does not further elaborate on parameter specifics beyond what the schema already provides. It slightly reinforces the purpose of parameters like 'type' and 'name'.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: registering and managing reusable assets like logos, outros, intros, music, and images. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the resource type and how the assets are used (referenced by name in create_clip/manage_reel).

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 states when to use this tool: to register assets so they can be referenced by name instead of full paths. It provides clear context on the usage pattern, but does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, though the context implies using this over direct paths.

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