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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, meaning this is a mutating operation. The description adds only that fields are updated selectively ('Only include fields you want to change'), which hints at partial-update behavior. But it doesn't disclose the response format, auth requirements, or what happens to unspecified fields beyond the implication that they're untouched. No contradiction with 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is stated first, followed immediately by the key usage semantic. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is a low-complexity partial update with an output schema present and all params documented in the schema. The description is adequate for calling it correctly, but the title/description terminology mismatch ('section' vs 'asset') and lack of any guidance on when to use it leave minor gaps. Missing behavior details like what the update returns are covered by the output schema.

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 5 parameters with their meanings. The description adds the partial-update semantic ('Only include fields you want to change'), which clarifies that the tool merges changes rather than replacing the whole asset — genuine value beyond the schema. This warrants the baseline 3.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource ('Update asset metadata'). Clear enough to distinguish from siblings like create_asset, get_asset, archive_asset. However, the title says 'Update saved section' while the description says 'asset metadata' — the terminology mismatch between 'section' and 'asset' introduces minor ambiguity about what resource is actually being updated.

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 only usage guidance is 'Only include fields you want to change,' which explains partial-update semantics but does not say when to use this tool vs alternatives. With over 100 sibling tools including other update_* tools (update_page, update_report, update_theme), there's no direction on when update_asset is the right choice.

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