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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds the partial-update behavior ('Only include fields you want to change'), which is not in the annotations. However, it does not disclose any side effects or special behaviors beyond that, so it adds modest value.

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 sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the usage hint is concise. 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?

For a simple metadata update tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the partial-update rule. The output schema exists, and the input schema documents all fields and requirements. It lacks guidance on alternatives but that is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness issue for this tool.

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 all parameters (id, name, tags, description, is_recommended) are already explained. The description's 'Only include fields you want to change' provides a global usage note but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('asset metadata'), and the title 'Update saved section' aligns with the asset context. It distinguishes from siblings like create_asset and archive_asset by focusing on metadata updates, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 instruction 'Only include fields you want to change' provides a partial-update guideline but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_asset, get_asset, or archive_asset. No exclusions or alternative routing are given, which is a gap given the large sibling set.

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