set_identity

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

The description discloses critical behavioral nuance: 'Only the args you pass change; other fields are preserved.' This explains the partial-update semantics, which is not obvious from the schema alone. The idempotentHint annotation is complemented, not contradicted, and the description adds value beyond the structured annotation.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope, and the second adds usage context and behavioral detail. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, identifier types, partial-update behavior, and a typical use case. It does not address edge cases like passing null explicitly to clear a field or what happens if the item is not found, but these are not essential for basic usage.

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 0%, but the description compensates by naming the key fields (manufacturer, model, serial) and clarifying the identifier parameter with its accepted forms. It also explains the update semantics for omitted vs. passed parameters, which aids parameter understanding. However, it does not provide detailed individual parameter descriptions (e.g., formats or constraints), so it doesn't fully cover all 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Set manufacturer/model/serial on an existing item.' It also specifies the identifier types (assetId / alias field / exact name), which makes the action and target unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_location or set_warranty.

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 a clear use case: 'Use when a nameplate/label photo reveals a serial number or a model-number correction after the item was created.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context effectively implies when this tool is appropriate relative to other set_* tools.

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