update_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not explain side effects, whether partial updates are supported, required permissions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 at four words, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It has no structure or additional sentences that could provide context; it is brief but not useful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what metadata fields are involved, what response the agent can expect, or any constraints. The description is nowhere near sufficient for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 only 8%, with only the 'id' parameter having a generic description ('ID of the resource'). The description itself adds no parameter semantics whatsoever, not even hinting at the types of metadata fields (city, title, etc.) that are updatable. It utterly fails to compensate for the sparse schema descriptions.

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 'Update asset metadata' identifies a clear verb and resource, but 'metadata' is very broad and does not distinguish this tool from more specific siblings like update_asset_description or set_asset_custom_meta. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity about what aspects of metadata are updated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or mention related tools, leaving the agent to guess which of the many asset-related update tools is appropriate.

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