update_ortb_native_data_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing data asset'—nothing about partial vs full updates, effects on unspecified fields, required permissions, or response format. No additional context is offered beyond the operation itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It earns its place by clearly stating the operation and scope, and nothing more is needed for conciseness.

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?

This mutation tool lacks annotations and an output schema, yet the description does not explain return values, partial update behavior, or when to use it. While the schema covers parameters, the overall description is minimal and leaves noticeable gaps for an agent.

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 descriptions for all four parameters (id, len, type, template_id). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameters sufficiently.

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 states the operation (Update) and resource (existing data asset) scoped to an ORTB native template. It distinguishes this from create/delete/get tools in the same family by specifying 'existing'.

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 create_ortb_native_data_asset or update_ortb_native_image_asset. It does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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