update_asset_layout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the requirement to include field id for existing fields, but does not explain critical behaviors such as whether the entire fields array is replaced, whether omitted parameters are left unchanged, or any side effects. The agent is left guessing about the update semantics.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a practical instruction about field updates. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise while still conveying essential information.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It lacks context on how the fields array behaves (add, remove, replace?), whether updates are partial or full, and any prerequisites or consequences. An agent would need substantial inference to use this tool correctly in complex scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'fields' and 'field id', leaving the other 9 parameters (icon, name, color, active, icon_color, include_files, etc.) unexplained. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value over the raw 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: updating an Asset Layout including its fields. The verb 'update' and resource 'Asset Layout' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_asset_layout' and 'move_asset_layout' through the explicit use of 'update'.

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?

The description provides a clear, specific instruction for updating existing fields: 'Include field id to update existing fields.' This gives actionable guidance on handling fields within the update, which goes beyond a generic update description. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like create_asset_layout, though the context of an update operation is implied.

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