Update an existing asset's details, such as name, serial, model, status, location, cost, or purchase date, by providing the asset ID and any fields to modify.
Update fields on an existing asset
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Asset ID | |
| name | No | ||
| notes | No | ||
| serial | No | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| status_id | No | ||
| location_id | No | ||
| purchase_cost | No | ||
| purchase_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the operation mutates fields; it does not mention permissions, partial-update semantics, whether null clears fields, reversibility, or response/error behavior.
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 clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive detail.
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 mutating tool with nine parameters, nearly no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. An agent would lack enough context about field semantics, required data formats, and expected behavior to call it reliably.
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 only 11%, with just 'id' described as 'Asset ID'. The description adds no parameter meaning, leaving eight of nine parameters with bare types and no explanation of valid values, formats, or constraints.
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 states a clear action ('Update') and resource ('fields on an existing asset'), which distinguishes it from create/list/get siblings at a basic level. However, it does not enumerate the updatable fields or contrast it with checkin/checkout, which also mutate asset state.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hardware_checkin, hardware_checkout, or hardware_create. The word 'update' weakly implies modifying existing records, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.