update_asset_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavior: it patches only the description field and leaves other fields untouched. However, it does not mention permissions, return values, or error cases, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that efficiently states the primary behavior, scope, and relationship to an alternative tool. Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple two-parameter patch tool, the description provides purpose, scope, and sibling differentiation. It does not explain return values or authentication, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is mostly adequate. The only notable gap is the absence of any mention of response behavior or error conditions.

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 covers 50% of parameters (only 'id' has a description). The tool description clarifies that the 'description' parameter is the field to be patched, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide additional format or constraints beyond what is already obvious.

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 uses a specific verb ('Patch'), identifies the resource ('description field on an asset'), and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool update_asset by explicitly limiting scope to the description field only.

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?

The phrase 'lighter than update_asset; does not touch other fields' gives clear context for when to use this tool versus update_asset. It implies using this when only the description needs updating, though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions for other scenarios.

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