Update IT Glue Flexible Asset

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

Annotations provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. However, it adds minimal context beyond annotations—it mentions the tool updates an existing asset and specifies the return format options, but doesn't describe potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description doesn't contradict annotations, as 'Update' aligns with readOnlyHint=false.

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-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear opening sentence followed by an Args section. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the Args section could be more concise by relying on the schema. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the parameter listing is somewhat redundant given the schema coverage.

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's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral context (e.g., what 'traits' updates entail), and output specifics. With no output schema, the description should ideally explain the return value more thoroughly, though it does mention the format options.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description lists parameters in the Args section but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it repeats that 'id' is required and 'response_format' has enum values). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value added.

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 ('Update') and resource ('existing flexible asset in IT Glue'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'itglue_create_flexible_asset' by specifying it updates existing assets rather than creating new ones. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools (e.g., itglue_update_configuration) beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing flexible asset ID), when to use it over other update tools for different resources, or any specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The only implied usage is updating flexible assets, but no explicit context is given.

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