update_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Update an existing asset.' It does not specify whether updates are partial or full replacements, how missing fields are handled, whether validation occurs, error behaviors, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a one-sentence purpose and an 'Args' section. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

Although the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description is incomplete for an update operation. It does not clarify update semantics (e.g., partial vs. replace), valid fields, or behavior when the asset does not exist. With many sibling tools, it also fails to differentiate usage context. The description is minimal and leaves critical ambiguities.

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?

The schema provides only titles with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does give brief meanings for both parameters: 'display_id' as the asset display ID and 'updates' as a dictionary of fields to update. This is basic but helpful; however, it lacks specifics about allowed update fields, nested object support, or dictionary format beyond being an object.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing asset' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from create/delete/read asset tools by implying the asset already exists and is being modified. The sibling tools include create_asset and delete_asset, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_asset, delete_asset, or other update tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist) or situations where this tool is preferred over others.

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