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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that it updates an existing asset, such as required permissions, partial-update semantics, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource appear immediately. It is efficient, though extremely terse, which is appropriate for the conciseness dimension.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent safety profile, the description is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It omits usage context but the rich schema and annotations compensate; only minor contextual details about the update operation are missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's phrase 'by type and ID' merely repeats asset_type and assetId from the schema, adding no extra syntax, constraints, or meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Update') and resource ('asset'), and scopes it to existing assets identified by type and ID. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish siblings such as glpi_create_asset or glpi_get_asset, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create, get, or list. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions; usage is only implied by the verb 'Update'.

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