asset_lifecycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond these: it never deletes an asset, it resolves IDs deterministically, and email/identifiers must be unambiguous. It does not describe what each action does to asset state or any permission/rate requirements.

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 core actions and scope, followed by input constraints and the deletion disclaimer. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for an 11-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameter semantics and per-action behavior undocumented, which is a notable gap.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially compensates. It hints at action_name via the verb list and references identifiers and exact user email, but says nothing about expected_checkin, next_audit_date, location_id, assigned_to_id, checkout_to_type, note, or serial vs asset_tag vs asset_id.

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 names specific verbs (checkout, checkin, audit, restore) and a specific resource (one Snipe-IT asset), and explicitly scopes out deletion, which distinguishes it from delete_resource. It stops short of naming how it differs from nearby siblings like asset_maintenance or inventory_lifecycle, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It gives an explicit gating condition ('Use only when the user explicitly requests the lifecycle action') and states the identifier-resolution requirement. It does not name alternative sibling tools or when-not-to-use cases beyond the explicit-request rule, so it falls short of a full 5.

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