asset_mark_host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states the allowed statuses but does not explain whether marking overwrites an existing status, whether the host must already exist, or any other behavioral implications. This is a mutation tool but lacks transparency about its effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the action and key parameter values. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality and allowed statuses, but it lacks important context: whether the host must exist, whether statuses are case-sensitive, and what happens on success or failure. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make it slightly incomplete.

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 input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It lists the valid status values, which clarifies the 'status' parameter. However, it does not define each status's meaning or specify the expected format of 'host_ip' beyond what the schema title indicates. This partial compensation merits a moderate score.

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 uses a specific verb 'mark' with a clear resource 'host' and states the exact purpose: to set a status. It distinguishes from asset_mark_vuln by focusing on host status, and the status values are enumerated. This is clear and unambiguous.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like asset_mark_vuln or asset_search. The description implies the tool is for adjusting host status, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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