Update asset replacement plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds real value by naming the required scope (asset_replacement_plans:write), but it does not explain the destructive semantics (e.g. whether omitted fields are cleared) despite destructiveHint being true.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded ahead of the scope requirement. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity is partly responsible for the gaps elsewhere.

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 mutated resource with full annotation coverage, 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it says what it does and what authorization is needed. It stops short of describing mutation behavior, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 schema already documents all eight fields including the enum values for status and priority. The description only restates that the plan is identified 'by ID', adding nothing beyond the schema – 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 (Update) plus resource (asset replacement plan) and the lookup key (by ID), which cleanly separates it from the create_/get_/list_/delete_asset_replacement_plan siblings. No explicit sibling routing, but the naming makes the distinction 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 phrase 'Update an existing ... plan' implies the precondition that a plan must already exist, and the write scope narrows who can call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_asset_replacement_plan or update_asset, so usage is only inferred.

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