PUT /hardware/{id}

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'Updates'—it does not explain full-replacement semantics, overwrite risk, permission needs, or the SNIPEIT_CONFIRM_WRITES confirmation flow that appears only in the schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation. The generated-from-OpenAPI boilerplate adds little, but the definition is not bloated.

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 destructive nested-body PUT with a confirmation token and many overlapping hardware-update siblings, the description is too thin. It omits confirmation requirements, full-replacement behavior, and sibling routing.

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 67%; id and confirm have descriptions, but the nested body fields largely do not. The description contributes nothing about the required body fields or the confirm token, so it does not compensate for the remaining parameter gaps.

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 names a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('a specific asset'), and the title supplies the PUT /hardware/{id} route. It does not distinguish this operation from siblings such as snipeit_update_hardware or snipeit_gen_hardware_partial_update, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use statement, no mention of alternatives like partial update, and no prerequisites. The only usage hint is the HTTP method in the title, leaving selection entirely inferred.

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