update_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only says 'Update an existing Asset.' It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, how unspecified fields are treated, any authorization requirements, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 description is one short sentence with no redundancy, which is concise. However, it's not structured to convey more than the core action; it could benefit from a brief list of key updateable fields, but that would increase length. As is, it's acceptable for conciseness.

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?

This is an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides zero behavioral, prerequisite, or parameter context. It is far below the minimum viable description for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't mention any of the 8 parameters. Custom fields, primary_mail, etc., are left unexplained, making it impossible for the agent to know what values are expected.

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?

Clearly states the action (update) and resource (Asset), distinguishing it from create_asset, delete_asset, and archive_asset. However, it doesn't enumerate which fields are updatable, leaving the schema to carry that detail.

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 on when to use this tool versus create_asset, delete_asset, or other asset-related operations. It doesn't mention prerequisites like whether the asset must exist or what conditions are required, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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