Api asset capabilities partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds nothing about what a partial update does, which fields are mutable, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what permissions are required. It contributes zero behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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?

It is only a few tokens, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no front-loaded purpose statement to structure around.

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?

A mutation endpoint with an entirely opaque request body, no output schema, and no annotations explaining payload semantics requires far more description than a repeated identifier. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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 provides no parameter information, leaving the critical 'body' parameter as an unconstrained anyOf object with no explanation of expected keys. With two undocumented parameters and no compensating prose, this is the worst case.

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 is the literal tool identifier repeated verbatim ('api_asset_capabilities_partial_update'), with no verb or resource stated in prose. This is tautology, the definition of a 1 on this dimension, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as api_asset_capabilities_update or api_asset_capabilities_retrieve.

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?

There is no guidance at all on when to use this tool versus the sibling full-update, create, or retrieve endpoints. The agent must infer everything from the name suffix.

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