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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful operational context: API key requirement, $0.08 cost, and patch semantics. No contradiction with annotations, and no claim about side effects beyond patching.

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?

One compact sentence plus a tight parenthetical containing cost and auth requirements. It is front-loaded with the operation and fields, and every word adds signal.

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 mutation tool with seven parameters, it is reasonably complete: cost, auth, and an example are given, and an output schema exists. However, it does not state prerequisites such as the asset already existing, nor distinguish itself from upload_asset/attach_asset/archive_asset, which an agent may need.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate. It names four patchable parameters and links 'processed' to role, but it leaves asset_id, filename, and asset_type without meaningful semantics and doesn't clarify their role in the update.

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 names a specific verb ('Patch') and resource ('asset') and enumerates the exact fields that can be modified: role, metadata, description, parent_asset_id. The example 'mark as processed' makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from read-only or upload/attach operations.

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?

It gives clear context for a partial update on an existing asset (patch fields, e.g. mark as processed). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to upload_asset/attach_asset as alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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