Audit asset

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive profile. The description earns some credit by disclosing that this tool can move the asset and schedule the next audit, i.e. it mutates asset state beyond the audit record itself. It omits whether prior audit history is replaced, what is returned, and whether the location change requires the asset to be in a particular state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably a touch too terse for a five-parameter mutation, but every clause is load-bearing.

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?

Missing note coverage and the update_location default of true would be a real risk for an agent omitting location_id — but with the update_location parameter defaulting to true and the description saying the move is optional, the risk is modest. No output schema exists, so return semantics remain unstated.

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 60%; 'note' and 'location_id' have no descriptions anywhere. The description does explain the move and next-audit-date options, but never mentions 'note' or clarifies that moving only occurs when update_location is true — the very coupling an agent could get wrong.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Record an audit') on a specific object type ('hardware asset'), plus the two optional side effects it performs. It reads clearly against siblings like update/checkout/checkin, though it doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use instead for pure location moves.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over update (moving a location) or checkin/checkout. The word 'optionally' hints that location change is conditional, but the condition (the update_location flag) is never stated in usage terms.

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