accelo_update_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose required permissions, whether title is the only mutable field, whether changes are reversible, side effects on linked assets, or error behavior for an invalid id. The one hint ('Additional fields to return') at least signals response customization.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by compact arg notes. Nothing is padded, though the raw docstring formatting is slightly mechanical.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool, the description is too thin: it omits permission/auth requirements, mutation semantics, and error cases. Only the basic parameter list is covered.

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 documents all three params (id required, title new title, fields returned). That compensates partly, but it is shallow: 'fields' format (comma-separated? list?) and allowed values for title/property updates are not clarified.

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 and resource ('Update an existing asset'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to differentiate itself from the many sibling update/create/delete tools for other resources, so an agent must rely on the name alone to route correctly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. create_asset_link, get_asset). Usage is only implied by the word 'Update'.

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