update_fixed_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that financial fields are locked once depreciation is posted and that user confirmation is required, but omits permissions/authorization needs, whether omitted fields are preserved, and what the mutation returns or whether it is reversible.

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, purpose front-loaded, constraint and confirmation instruction following. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 22-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. The lock and confirmation notes are valuable, but it leaves update semantics (partial vs full replacement), permissions, and result behavior unexplained.

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 22 parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The 'financial fields are locked' note hints at which parameters are constrained but doesn't name which of the cost/date/depreciation fields are affected or add format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Update a fixed asset'), so the agent knows it mutates an existing fixed-asset record rather than creating, disposing, or reading one. However, it never names a sibling to differentiate against (e.g. create_fixed_asset, dispose_fixed_asset), so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Confirm with the user first' is genuine usage guidance for an agent-facing mutation, and the depreciation-lock note frames a precondition. But there is no explicit when-not-to-use or routing to alternatives among siblings, so guidance is implied rather than complete.

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