update_ortb_native_image_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update an existing image asset,' implying the asset must exist, but does not reveal whether fields are partially updated or fully replaced, what validation occurs, what the response looks like, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 zero filler. It efficiently states the action and the resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only provides a one-line summary. It does not mention required parameters, update behavior, return values, or any business context (e.g., that this is part of an ORTB native template CRUD flow). A mutation tool of this complexity needs richer description to be fully contextualized.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own terse field descriptions (e.g., 'Height', 'Width'), and does not clarify relationships like h/hmin or w/wmin. However, since all parameters have schema descriptions, the tool is minimally viable in this dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing image asset for an ORTB native template'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_ortb_native_image_asset or update_ortb_native_title_asset. The operation is unambiguous and correctly scoped to existing assets.

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 such as create or delete image assets. It does not mention that template_id and id are required to target an existing asset, nor does it explain the update semantics (e.g., partial vs. full replacement).

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