gorelo_update_custom_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful partial-update semantics (unsent fields remain unchanged), but says nothing about permissions, whether omitted vs. null fields differ, or what the mutation returns.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the partial-update constraint immediately after. Nothing extraneous.

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 two-parameter update with fully documented nested fields and mutation annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The minor gap is the absence of return-value or permission context, though no output schema exists to compensate.

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%, and the nested body fields each carry detailed semantics including null-clearing behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only reinforces that fields are optional, adding no new parameter detail beyond the baseline.

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 ('Updates a custom asset'), clearly distinguishing it from the create/get/list custom_asset siblings by name. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Send only the fields you want to change' communicates PATCH-style usage semantics, which is genuinely useful guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. gorelo_create_custom_asset or gorelo_get_custom_asset, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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