Update asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain whether the update is a merge/partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, or any permission requirements. For a destructive mutation, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficiently sized. However, the extreme brevity borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the description leaves the agent without guidance on which fields the 'input' object accepts or the semantics of a destructive update. For a mutation tool with an unconstrained nested object, it is not complete enough.

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 100%, so the schema documents asset_type and assetId with an enum and ID pattern. The description only restates 'by type and ID' and says nothing about the critical 'input' parameter, which is an unconstrained additionalProperties object whose updatable fields are undocumented anywhere. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (asset) and indicates the keying mechanism (by type and ID). An agent can distinguish it from glpi_update_entity, glpi_update_ticket, etc. by resource, though the description does not explicitly contrast them.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., glpi_create_asset, glpi_get_asset) and no prerequisites or exclusions. The single sentence only implies usage through the word 'existing'.

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