Update asset placement

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, destructive, idempotent, closed-world behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by naming the required OAuth scope (asset_placements:write), which annotations do not carry. It does not explain the destructive side effect of relocation (removal from the previous floorplan/region), which is the remaining gap.

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 short sentences, operation front-loaded, prerequisite second. No filler and nothing wasted.

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 five-parameter mutation whose annotations cover safety and whose schema covers all fields, the definition is nearly sufficient: purpose plus auth scope. It lacks partial-update semantics (whether omitted coordinates are preserved) and the consequence of moving between floorplans, which an agent would want before calling.

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 param meaning is already carried by the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description echoes coordinates and floorplan but adds no semantics beyond the schema, and it omits the region_id null-clearing behaviour that the schema documents.

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 and resource: "Move an asset placement to new coordinates or a different floorplan." This distinguishes it from the neighbouring update_asset and create/delete_asset_placement tools without ambiguity. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use for a different edit, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 supplies a prerequisite (asset_placements:write scope) but no when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as update_asset or update_floorplan_region. Usage is implied by the operation name rather than stated.

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