Api asset class update

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not required to carry that burden. It still contributes nothing beyond them: no mention of what fields are replaced versus left untouched, whether omitted fields are nulled, or whether permissions are required for a mutation.

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?

There is no waste because there is essentially no content; this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single identifier cannot front-load anything useful.

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?

For a mutation endpoint with two parameters, 0% schema coverage, a free-form body, and no output schema, the description leaves every question an agent would need answered before calling it unresolved.

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 supplies no parameter information at all. The 'body' parameter is an untyped free-form object with additionalProperties=true, so an agent has no way to learn which asset-class attributes are writable — a significant gap the description does nothing to close.

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 literally the tool's identifier, 'api_asset_class_update', restating the name verbatim and conveying nothing an agent could not read off the name itself. It does not say what an asset class is, what an update changes, or how it differs from the sibling asset_class_partial_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?

No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool rather than asset_class_partial_update, asset_class_create, or asset_class_batch_action_create. The agent must infer that 'update' means a full replacement PUT, which the description never states.

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