asm_management_upload_asm_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is a write (upload), it has limits (500 items), it requires specific permissions and licensing, and it provides the exact API endpoint. It does not discuss error handling or idempotency, but it is quite transparent for the intended use.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, details, permissions, license, endpoint, and example. It is slightly long but every part serves a purpose (limits, permissions, example). It avoids fluff and is easy to scan.

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?

The tool has a complex nested request_data object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately covers the input format, applicable limitations, and prerequisites. It does not describe the response/return value, which would be useful, but the provided information is sufficient for invoking the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example request body showing how request_data is structured, including the exact format for ip_range asset identifiers and business_units. This example clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema definitions.

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: 'Upload assets to the inventory' and specifies exactly what it uploads (domains, subdomains, IPv4 address ranges). It differentiates from sibling tools like asm_management_remove_asm_data (removal) and assets_get_external_* (read-only retrieval).

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 clear usage context: it explains what asset types are accepted, the maximum batch size (500), required permissions (Instance Administrator), and required licenses. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose and constraints make when-to-use obvious.

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