update_asset_alt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value by emphasizing the overwrite semantics of an existing value and stating 'Returns the updated asset', filling the gap left by the absent output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Set (overwrite)') before the explanatory clause. Nothing is redundant and the key overwrite constraint appears first.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the return ('Returns the updated asset') and all three parameters are documented in the schema. Combined with annotations covering the mutation safety profile, the definition is essentially complete; only cross-tool routing is unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what alt text semantically is (screen-reader/search-engine description) and giving a value rule (one sentence; empty string only for decorative images), adding meaning for the 'alt' parameter specifically.

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 ('Set (overwrite) an image asset's alt text') and immediately defines the concept it targets. An agent can distinguish this single-purpose alt-text setter from siblings like set_field or update_content without opening a 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?

Guidance is given for the value itself ('Describe what the image shows in one sentence; use "" only for a purely decorative image'), which is helpful. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as set_field or update_content, nor any prerequisites (e.g. needing documentId from list_assets). Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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