update_asset

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

Since no annotations were provided, the description carries the full burden. It details critical behavioral traits like mutation target ('Officer control-plane config'), security status ('protected and disabled by default'), and specific failure modes (e.g., refusal of code change).

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 highly dense but efficient. It front-loads the primary capabilities followed by specific, critical operational constraints, ensuring no time is wasted on irrelevant information.

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 that there is no output schema, the description is contextually complete. It defines mutation targets, permissions, and key operational success/failure criteria, providing everything an agent needs to execute it safely.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description explicitly adds semantic meaning to the input parameters by stating that 'the title and the asset class replace the stored ones, and an omitted or empty one clears it.' This is vital behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the operation (Change) and the resources it acts upon (asset's code, title, and asset class). While specific, it lacks a single differentiating phrase compared to a generic 'update' tool, but its focus on asset management is clear.

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?

It provides explicit negative usage guidelines by stating when a code change is refused (e.g., rate-limit or P&L barriers). This defines a crucial constraint on when an agent can successfully use the tool.

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