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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write/mutation against an asset and states its effect on dormancy flagging, but says nothing about idempotency, whether the asset must already exist, required permissions, or rate limits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves no room for the operational detail this tool's context would justify.

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 conveys purpose and effect, which covers the core for a low-complexity single-parameter tool, but with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, an agent still lacks the input identity and result expectations needed to call it confidently.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions 'asset_id' or what form a valid identifier takes. The single critical input is left entirely to inference.

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 and resource ('Record a heartbeat') and clarifies intent with the effect clause about not being flagged dormant, which implicitly contrasts with the 'dormancy' sibling. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5 by the calibration bar.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'so a quiet-but-live asset is not flagged dormant' hints at the scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of how it relates to 'dormancy', 'sweep', or 'exit_work_order'.

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