assets_write

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still earns credit by scoping the write surface explicitly and noting the return is conditional on the backend including the asset. It does not, however, explain the create-vs-update discriminator that underlies the idempotent claim.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: purpose first, usage gate second, exclusions and return semantics last. No filler or restatement of the name.

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-value detail is not required, and the exclusion list covers a lot of ground for a busy write tool. But with 18 undescribed parameters, an unexplained required action_name, and no statement of what identifies the target asset on update, the definition leaves the agent guessing at the exact call shape.

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 18 parameters, so the description carries the full semantic burden and mostly fails to. It gestures at "explicit common fields and optional custom fields" (presumably custom_fields_json), but never names a field, gives the custom_fields_json format, or explains the required action_name discriminator that selects create vs update.

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 pair (create/update) and a specific resource (Snipe-IT hardware asset), and explicitly enumerates what it is NOT (delete, checkout, checkin, audit, restore). That enumeration cleanly separates it from siblings such as asset_lifecycle, delete_resource, and asset_maintenance without opening any 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?

"Use only for an explicit create or update request" is a clear gating condition, and the negative list tells the agent when to look elsewhere. It stops short of naming the sibling to use for the excluded operations (e.g., asset_lifecycle for checkout/checkin), so routing 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.