update_asset_password

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing Password entry,' which offers no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or whether it performs a partial or full update. This is significantly under-specified 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 a single, clear sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. While it lacks detail, this dimension rewards conciseness, and the sentence is efficient for what it communicates.

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 the complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, zero schema descriptions), this one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the update behavior, the meaning of the parameters, or the expected result. The tool cannot be reliably used based on this description alone.

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?

The schema has 13 parameters with zero description coverage in the schema, and the description provides no additional meaning for any parameter. It does not mention which fields are updatable, that only id is required, or any constraints (e.g., password format, folder association). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing Password entry'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from general asset update tools. However, it does not go beyond the name to add scope or additional differentiation from sibling tools like update_asset.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where another tool might be more appropriate. The description is purely declarative with no contextual advice.

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