update_asset

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

Annotations already indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and potentially destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description 'Update fields' is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context beyond the 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no extraneous information, making it highly concise.

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 3 parameters (including a nested object) and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how extra_fields works, what the return value is, or any constraints. Annotations cover some behavioral aspects, but the description lacks completeness for a mutation tool.

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 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no explanation of the parameters (name, asset_id, extra_fields). The description fails to clarify the meaning or usage of these parameters, leaving the agent without necessary semantics.

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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'existing Planhat asset', clearly indicating its function. It distinguishes from create, delete, and list siblings by the act of updating. However, it does not enumerate which specific fields can be updated beyond the schema.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_asset (for new assets) or delete_asset (for removal). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use indicators.

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