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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that an API key with write scope is required and that the updated asset is returned. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose. It contains no redundant words and stays within a compact length.

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 covers the tool's purpose, required authentication (write scope), and return value. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, it provides enough context for an AI agent to use it correctly. It could mention error cases, but that is not necessary given the structured data.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'relabel' corresponds to the label parameter and 'toggle which checks run' maps to the boolean parameters. It also clarifies that asset_id comes from list_my_assets, adding practical guidance beyond the schema.

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 states the action: 'Update one of YOUR monitored assets by its asset id'. It specifies the resource (monitored assets) and the operations (relabel or toggle checks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_asset, delete_asset, and list_my_assets.

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 tells the user to get the asset id from list_my_assets, which is a clear prerequisite. It implies the use case of modifying an existing asset, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with create or delete tools. The context from sibling names and the description makes the intended usage clear.

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