Update Asset

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

Annotations identify only non-readOnly (mutation allowed) and non-destructive; the description adds that this is a partial 'Patch' (not full replace/delete), that the call costs $0.08, and that an API key is required. It doesn't mention idempotency or merge/replace behavior, but the schema already documents request_id/idempotency_key, so the added auth/cost/partial-update context earns credit.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and target fields, then appends cost and authentication requirements. No filler or repetition.

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 9 parameters, a nested metadata object, and low schema coverage, the description leaves too much implicit: only asset_id is required, but several optional fields have no guidance and no usage condition is given. It is adequate for a simple role update but incomplete for correct general invocation.

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 coverage is 33%, so the description needed to compensate, but it merely lists four fields (role, metadata, description, parent_asset_id) without explaining semantics for metadata, parent_asset_id, filename, asset_type, or asset_id. It does add one useful clue ('mark as processed' for role), but that is not enough across 9 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Patch') with a clear resource (asset) and enumerates the updatable fields (role, metadata, description, parent_asset_id). This makes it distinct from the many sibling update_* tools, whose resources are named in their titles; the asset-specific scope is obvious.

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 'e.g. mark as processed' example implies a common use case, but the description never states when to choose update_asset over siblings like upload_asset, attach_asset, or archive_asset, nor when not to use it. Usage must be inferred from the field list rather than explicit.

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