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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by stating the required "assets:write" scope and spelling out the multi-hop resolution order for location and system IDs, which the agent would otherwise have to discover.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then scope, then the resolution workflow. Every sentence carries information, though the location/system guidance could be tightened since it partly duplicates the schema's own field hints.

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?

For a 39-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: write scope and the tricky hierarchical ID resolution. It omits patch-vs-replace semantics and how unspecified fields are treated, but annotations cover the safety profile, so it is largely complete.

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 39 parameters are already documented, including the per-field resolve-first/second/last hints. The description merely restates the resolution chain rather than adding syntax or constraints the schema lacks, 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 and resource ("Update an existing asset by ID"), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many other update_* siblings (e.g., update_infrastructure_asset, update_asset_part), relying on the name alone for that separation.

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?

Gives procedural guidance for two specific cases (location and system hierarchy resolution) with the exact list_* call sequence. But it offers no when-to-use guidance versus alternatives and no mention of when not to use it, leaving the broader routing to inference.

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