save_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (upsert), the HTTP endpoint, and that userId/updateTime are automatically filled, which goes beyond the input schema. It does not mention authentication or response details, but the core behavioral traits are visible.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the operation and endpoint before listing fields. The field list is necessary and not padded with filler. Slight structure loss from the run-on format, but it is efficient and information-dense.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the endpoint, upsert behavior, update-vs-insert detection, and complete field semantics, which is enough for an agent to construct a valid call. It omits the response/return shape and auth context, which would be needed for full completeness, but the main invocation requirements are satisfied.

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?

The input schema only describes entity as an object, providing no property-level details. The description compensates richly by naming assetId as primary key, explaining each field's business meaning, marking optional fields, and noting which fields are auto-populated. This is a substantial addition 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 states the tool's action: 新增或更新资产 (add or update an asset), specifies the endpoint POST /asset/addOrUpdateAsset, and explains upsert semantics with the primary key determining update. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like delete_asset, get_assets, and save_asset_history.

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 gives a concrete rule: if the entity carries the primary key assetId, the operation updates; otherwise it creates. It also enumerates the asset fields so an agent knows what kind of object to pass. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough.

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