Upsert Asset Profile

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the POST-then-PATCH sequence, tolerance of Ghostfolio's HTTP 500 on first-time and duplicate creates, PATCH as the source of truth, the 404 consequence if the POST did not persist, and the same-end-state guarantee across repeated calls. This is rich, accurate behavioral context.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and packs in essential behavioral details without repeating the schema's parameter descriptions or padding the text.

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?

The tool has unusual error behavior and a two-step write path, and the description covers all of it: idempotency, 500 tolerance, 404 surfacing, and final-state guarantee. The output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds operation-to-parameter mapping: name, currency, asset_class, and asset_sub_class are PATCHed metadata, while the POST concerns the profile-data record. This helps an agent reason about which parameters participate in which step.

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 opens with 'Create-or-update an asset profile,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates it from get_asset_profile and delete_asset_profile. The two-step POST/PATCH mechanism further removes ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 first sentence establishes the exact trigger for using this tool: when an asset profile needs to be created or updated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling list contains no equivalent create-or-update tool, so the usage context is clear.

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