create_asset

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create' and mentions custom_fields usage, but does not explain side effects, permissions, or what the response will be. The creation action is implied by the name, but no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 short sentences deliver the core purpose and a key parameter hint without any filler. The description is front-loaded and 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and clarify required fields. It fails to do so, leaving ambiguity about the response and the role of asset_layout_id and other primary fields. The tool is too complex to be adequately covered by this terse description.

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 only 13% (custom_fields). The description adds a hint about custom_fields ('Use custom_fields array for custom field values'), but does not clarify the meaning of primary_mail, primary_model, primary_serial, primary_manufacturer, or asset_layout_id. This is insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 clearly states 'Create an Asset under a specific company,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_asset_layout or create_asset_password by naming the target resource. The additional note about custom_fields reinforces the intended use.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_asset or list_assets. The description only implies creation, but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention other asset tools, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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