edit_asset

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses: impact is server-derived from factors, LLM-gating on identity fields, outcomes (accepted/rejected with response format), and error conditions. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. No wasted words; every sentence adds unique value (e.g., error handling, gating conditions, outcome behaviors). Concise yet comprehensive.

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 tool with 16 parameters (3 required) and output schema, the description covers all key behavioral aspects: editing rules, LLM interaction, error handling, and prerequisites. No apparent gaps.

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 94%, but description adds critical context: explains that impact field cannot be set directly, the relationship between factor fields and change_reason, and which parameters are LLM-gated. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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?

Clearly states 'Edit an existing asset' with specificity about behavior (only provided fields changed). Distinguishes from sibling edit tools by describing asset-specific logic like LLM-gating and impact composition.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (edit asset), when-not (soft-deleted asset — use restore_asset first), and alternative paths (accepted vs. rejected edits). Includes error codes (400, 502, 503) and prerequisites for factor fields (change_reason required).

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