assets_update

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

The description reveals key behaviors: properties set on creation are ignored, asset can be moved to a same-customer policy folder, and returns 422 for cross-customer or nonexistent IDs. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does it well.

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 concise sentences with no redundant information. Key points are front-loaded: purpose, usage timing, and special behavior. Every sentence adds unique value.

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 description covers core behaviors and constraints effectively. No output schema exists, but return values are not described. Given the complexity (nested object, 8 params), the description is thorough without being verbose.

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?

All 8 parameters have schema descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing specific property keys (hdd, manufacturer, etc.) that the 'properties' object can take, and reiterates the constraint on policy_folder_id, going 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an existing asset.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool assets_create by noting that properties set during creation are ignored, so this tool must be used to set properties after creation.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('after creation') and mentions a specific use case (moving asset to a policy folder with reference to policies_list_folders). It does not list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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