update_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. The 'etc.' at the end is slightly vague but keeps it concise. No wasted words, though it could be more structured with bullet points for the field examples.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should explain more about the update operation (e.g., partial vs. full updates, error conditions, response format). The current description leaves too many contextual gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists examples of updatable fields (filename, asset_folder_id, alt, title, copyright) which helps interpret some of the 6 parameters, but doesn't cover all parameters (e.g., asset_id is required but not mentioned) or provide format details. It adds marginal value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 states the verb 'update' and resource 'asset metadata', and lists specific fields that can be updated (filename, asset_folder_id, alt, title, copyright). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_asset' or 'get_asset' by specifying it's for metadata updates rather than deletion or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_asset_folder'.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing asset), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new assets), or compare it to sibling tools like 'bulk_move_assets' or 'update_story'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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