Update asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds auth context ('Requires assets:write scope') and the cross-entity resolution requirement, both of which are beyond what the annotations expose; it stops short of explaining partial-update behavior or what the destructive hint actually affects.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the scope requirement, then the trickiest operational detail. Nothing is padded, though the final telegraphic line ('Same for systems: ...') relies on the reader mapping the analogy correctly.

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?

For a 39-parameter update tool with no output schema and a single required field, the description covers purpose, authorization, and the highest-risk operation (relocating an asset across three hierarchical entities). It does not explicitly state that omitted fields are left unchanged, nor does it flag scope of the destructive behavior, leaving a modest gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the per-parameter definitions are already fully documented, including the resolution chain embedded in site_id/building_id/location_id descriptions. The description's top-down recipe largely restates what the schema already says, adding emphasis but little new semantic meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource identifying the target unambiguously ('Update an existing asset by ID'), which cleanly separates it from create_asset, delete_asset and the infrastructure-asset variants. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or clarify why one would choose update_asset over bulk_update for a given change, so sibling differentiation is left to the reader.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: it requires assets:write scope and prescribes a top-down resolution procedure (list_sites -> list_buildings -> list_locations, and the parallel system chain) with the rule to 'provide all three IDs.' This tells the agent how to prepare a location/system change but offers no when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance.

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