edit_asset

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden — and it delivers richly. It discloses LLM-gating on identity fields, the replace/ambiguous rejection behavior (nothing saved, soft-delete + add-new), server-derived impact composition, quality_warning flagging on contract violations, and specific error codes (503/502/400). This is exemplary transparency.

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 a leading summary sentence, markdown headers, and a bulleted outcome list. Every sentence adds substantive information — none is filler. Slightly long but the density of critical behavioral details (gates, outcomes, errors) justifies the length.

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 tool with 16 parameters, 3 required, no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: covers accepted/rejected outcomes, the rating-revision audit trail, the soft-delete + add-new workaround, the LLM gate scope, and all error conditions. An agent could invoke this tool correctly without any external documentation.

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%, which sets the baseline at 3 — the schema already documents most parameters with enums and required-condition notes. The description adds genuine value on top by explaining the relationship between factor fields and the composed impact, and the meaning of change_reason in the operator-override context, which goes beyond the schema's phrasing.

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?

"Edit an existing asset. Only provided fields changed." uses a specific verb+resource with scope qualifier. Clearly distinguishes from sibling add_asset and other edit tools (edit_attacker, edit_threat_model, etc.) by naming the asset resource and the partial-update behavior.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (editing an asset) and when not (editing a soft-deleted asset is rejected — restore_entity first). Names the alternative tool (restore_entity) and references the asset authoring contract via add_asset. Also documents the LLM-gating condition for identity vs factor edits.

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