update_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 disclosing side effects, but it only mentions that it returns 'a confirmation message.' It does not disclose whether updates are partial or full replacement, whether validation occurs, permission requirements, or what happens if an asset does not exist. This is a significant gap 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 well-organized with a summary, mode explanation, Args block, and Returns line. While the opening sentences are somewhat repetitive, the overall structure is front-loaded and each section serves a purpose. It is appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool.

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?

Given the complexity of 11 parameters and two modes, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameter meaning, and return value. It lacks examples and error handling details, but the presence of an output schema and the clear mode guidance make it sufficient for typical invocation.

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?

The Args section lists all 11 schema properties with brief semantic descriptions (e.g., 'New name of the asset'), fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It also explains the interaction between 'id' (required for single mode) and 'items' (batch mode), which is critical for correct invocation.

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 opens with 'Update an existing asset' and 'Supports batch operations via the items parameter,' clearly identifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like add_asset, delete_asset, and other update_* tools by targeting assets specifically. The dual-mode (single/batch) detail further clarifies what the operation encompasses.

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?

It provides explicit instructions for when to use each mode: 'For single item: provide id and fields to update directly' and 'For batch: provide a list of asset dicts in the items parameter.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., add_asset), but the asset-specific naming and mode guidance make the usage context clear.

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