update_asset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the mandatory version parameter prevents lost updates, and metadata semantics ('replaces the whole object; null clears it') clarify an otherwise surprising destructive side effect.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its concurrency requirement, then the destructive metadata semantics, then the auth scope. No filler.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the critical missing pieces: concurrency model, replacement semantics, and required scope. It stops short of documenting asset_id/name behavior, which is a minor gap given the schema's pattern constraint.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully explains the two non-obvious parameters, version (concurrency token) and metadata (full replacement, null clears), but says nothing about asset_id or name, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an asset') and immediately adds the mechanism (current version). It is clearly distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_asset/list_assets, though it doesn't explicitly name delete_asset or store_asset as alternatives.

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 implies when this applies (mutating an existing asset, with an optimistic-lock version) and names the required scope assets:write, but gives no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as delete_asset or store_asset.

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