Update Asset Parsing Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe non-read-only mutation. The description adds that it updates status/metadata by id but does not mention merge semantics, validation, or potential side effects like re-triggering parsing. However, no contradiction exists, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

A single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and target. No filler or redundancy, making it easily parseable.

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?

Despite having annotations and a schema, the tool is under-specified. No output schema is provided, and the description omits expected return value, allowed/metadata update fields, or consequences of the update (e.g., does it re-parse the asset?). The free-form 'update' object leaves significant ambiguity for an agent to act on.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents them. The 'update' parameter is loosely defined as an object with additionalProperties, and the description adds no extra meaning or examples beyond the schema, meriting the baseline 3.

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 specific verb 'Update' and target 'parsing status/metadata of an asset by id', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lyzr_get_asset_parse_status and other asset operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lyzr_get_asset_parse_status or other update tools. The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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