Update library asset

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses the limited mutation surface: only labels change and nothing re-renders except image duration on the next render. It also states scope exclusions and specifies the return shape, giving the agent a strong behavioral picture.

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 compact and front-loaded: it names the operations, states scope constraints, explains render behavior, and gives the return shape without wasted prose.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the return fields. Combined with the rich input schema and clear scope/side-effect disclosure, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents name, tags, assetId, and imageSeconds in detail. The description adds conceptual mapping for the operations and some behavioral context, but does not add syntax or format detail 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 states specific operations (rename, replace tags, change still-image duration) on a clearly identified resource (own library items). It also distinguishes editable assets from shared catalog/provider items, which siblings like add_asset or delete_asset do not address.

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 gives clear scope: own library items can be updated, deleted items can be updated, but shared catalog and provider items cannot. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as search_assets for finding IDs or delete_asset for removal, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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