track_asset_lifecycle

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond a vague action. It doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates a separate event record, updates the asset's stage field, or logs the transition). With annotations present, the description should provide more detail but fails to do so.

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 extremely concise, using a short phrase. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is not a complete sentence and could benefit from slightly more specificity at minimal length cost.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns or the exact effect of the operation (e.g., whether it updates the asset's stage field or creates a separate lifecycle event). More context is needed for completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions for asset_id, new_stage (including allowed values), and notes. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: tracking asset lifecycle events and stage transitions. It distinguishes from siblings like create_asset and update_asset by focusing on stage changes, but the verb 'track' is slightly vague and could imply monitoring rather than recording.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain that this tool should be used to record a stage transition, while get_asset retrieves the current stage and update_asset modifies other attributes. No usage context or exclusions are given.

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