update_flexible_asset

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that traits are 'merged with existing traits,' indicating a partial update rather than wholesale replacement, and that the response is a JSON string. It does not address null semantics for archived or error behavior, but the main behavioral nuance is covered.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every line contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple three-parameter update tool, the description covers the core operation, merge behavior, archival status, and return format. It does not explain how to discover valid trait fields for a given flexible asset type, but this is a minor gap given the surrounding flexible asset sibling tools.

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 Args section is essential and covers all three parameters. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema: asset_id is the target ID, traits are merged field values, and archived sets archival status. More detail about valid trait keys would be helpful, but the provided definitions are functional.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing flexible asset.' It lists the relevant arguments and return value, making the tool's purpose clear and distinguishing it from the many create/get/delete/search flexible asset siblings.

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?

Using 'existing' implies this tool modifies an already-created flexible asset rather than creating one, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over create_flexible_asset, search_flexible_assets, or other update tools. Context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not stated.

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