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

Annotations already convey mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) and idempotency. The description adds value by stating the URL invariant, the required input constraint, and the auth scope. It does not elaborate on the destructive overwrite behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose and key constraint before moving to authentication. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 five-parameter update tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining actionable details: required field combination, URL stability, and auth scope. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that at least one of name/description is required even though the schema marks only asset_id as required, and by noting the URL remains unchanged. This adds meaningful semantic context for invocation.

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 specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('existing asset'), and narrows the operation to 'name and/or description' while noting the URL does not change. This clearly distinguishes update_asset from siblings like upload_asset, get_asset, and delete_asset.

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?

It gives clear usage constraints: at least one of name or description must be provided, and authentication requires at least content_only scope. It does not explicitly call out when to prefer upload_asset vs update_asset, but the scope and prerequisites are stated clearly enough for an agent to decide.

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