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, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a partial or full replace, what happens to omitted fields, whether permissions or asset state (e.g. approved assets) constrain edits, or whether the change is reversible. The schema hints at special rules for style and character assets, but the description surfaces none of that.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains zero filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision for a six-parameter mutation tool. It reads more like a title than a usable definition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and asset-type-specific rules embedded in the schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not say which asset types are supported, what the update semantics are, or what the caller gets back.

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% and the property descriptions already explain each field, including the notable constraints for description on style assets and voiceDescription on character assets. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing asset"), so the basic operation is unambiguous. However, it gives no differentiation from the many other update_* siblings (update_shot, update_media_tags, update_scene, update_workspace), and it does not indicate what kinds of assets exist or what aspects can be 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_asset or set_asset_approval_status. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the correct tool for modifying an asset.

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