update_content_assetEdit an owned draft. Submitted/approved/rejected revisions are immutable and must be revised.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| channel | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| asset_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. | |
| asset_type | No | ||
| scheduled_for | No | ||
| revision_notes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide little behavioral info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the key constraint that certain revision states cannot be edited, but omits other traits like partial vs full update behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens to unspecified 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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loading the main action and adding a critical constraint. No wasted words.
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?
Despite having 7 parameters and an output schema, the description only covers purpose and a single constraint. It lacks guidance on how to use optional parameters, prerequisites (e.g., needing asset_id from get_content_asset), or any details about the return value, making it incomplete for an effective agent.
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% (only asset_id described). The description 'Edit an owned draft' provides no additional meaning for the other six parameters (title, channel, content, etc.), failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 tool edits an owned draft, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_content_asset (creation), approve/reject (state changes), and submit (submission). It also specifies that certain revision states are immutable, further clarifying scope.
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 tells when to use (editing an owned draft) and when not to use (when revision is submitted/approved/rejected), implying the alternative is to create a revision. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool create_content_asset_revision, leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.