Update Asset (Snipe-IT)

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

The description explicitly states PATCH semantics ('only the fields in patch change') and that write access is required. This adds value beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the key information (partial update, PATCH semantics) in the first sentence.

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 tool has 2 parameters (id and patch), no output schema, and no annotations beyond hints, the description covers the core behavior (partial update) and access requirement. However, it lacks details about return values, error cases, or id parameter constraints, making it minimally adequate.

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 input schema has 50% description coverage (only the 'patch' parameter is described as 'Snipe-IT API fields (snake_case).'). The description adds that 'only the fields in patch change', clarifying the effect of the patch parameter but not its format. This provides moderate added meaning beyond the 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 action ('partially update an asset') and the resource ('asset'). It specifies PATCH semantics, which distinguishes it from full updates or create operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling snipeit_update_entity, which could be ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snipeit_create_asset or snipeit_get_asset. The description assumes the agent knows to use it for partial updates but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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