art.asset.update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the operation is destructive), required permissions, error behaviors if the asset does not exist, or any return value. The user is left completely uninformed about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant words. It is well-structured and easy to read, earning a perfect score.

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 description lacks essential context: no mention of return values, error cases, or how it relates to sibling tools. As a mutation operation without an output schema, the description should at least hint at what the caller can expect, but it does not.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (id and patch) with 100% coverage. The description merely restates these ('Provide the asset ID and a patch object with fields to change') without adding deeper semantics, such as constraints on the patch fields or interaction between parameters. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'asset', which distinguishes it from creation or deletion operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other update-like operations such as archive_version or promote, though the context makes it clear enough.

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 gives a basic instruction but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like art.asset.register (for creation) or art.asset.archive (for archival). No conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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