layout_asset_update

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds crucial behavioral information: filename causes a 500 error, data is not byte-exact due to JSON decoding, and raw U+2028/U+2029 or C0 controls are refused. These details go well beyond the annotation hint and are essential for safe use.

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 dense but every sentence provides a necessary caveat or alternative. It leads with the core action, then systematically covers read-only field, encoding behavior, alternative tool, and input validation rules—all without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (PUT with JSON boundary issues, read-only fields, external alternatives), the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, restrictions, alternative tools, error conditions, and encoding pitfalls. With no output schema, it provides enough context 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 only 25% (only filename has a description). The description compensates by explaining the semantics of `data` (JSON decoding, not byte-exact) and `filename` (rejected, use asset_replace). `site` and `asset_id` are self-evident from the tool name and context, so the added detail is sufficient.

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 updates a layout_asset's content, using the specific HTTP PUT method and resource path. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly recommending asset_replace for rename and layouts_push for deploying tracked files.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use asset_replace for rename, use layouts_push for tracked files, and warns against sending filename. This makes the tool's usage boundaries clear relative to alternatives.

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