update_asset

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), and idempotent (idempotentHint: true). The description adds only a redundant '[Write]' tag and does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether partial updates are supported, validation rules, or what happens on update failure.

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, with a single sentence and a short tag. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. This is an example of efficient description structure.

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?

The tool has a nested 'fields' object, no output schema, and no guidance on behavior or return value. The description is too sparse to provide a complete picture of how updates behave, leaving a significant gap in understanding.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters ('Asset sys_id' and 'Fields to update'), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it does not compensate beyond schema.

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 'Update an IT asset record' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (IT asset record), making the tool's purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like create_asset, retire_asset, list_assets, and get_asset by the specific action, though it lacks the added scope or detail seen in higher-scored examples.

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. There is no mention of requiring an existing sys_id, how this differs from create_asset or retire_asset, or any context about the update workflow. The description offers no usage direction.

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