layout_asset_update

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

Annotations indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotent (idempotentHint=true). The description adds value by warning about the filename parameter causing a 500 error and clarifying that renaming is not supported. No contradictions.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing parameters.

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?

The description does not mention return values or success indicators, nor does it explain the 'data' parameter. Though the schema is simple, additional context about the update effect is missing.

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 low (25%) and the description only addresses the 'filename' parameter. It does not explain 'site', 'asset_id', or 'data' parameters, leaving their semantics unclear despite being required.

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', the resource 'layout_asset', and the HTTP method 'PUT'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'asset_replace' by noting that filename changes require that tool.

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 clear context: filename is read-only and will cause an error, and directs to use 'asset_replace' for renaming. It gives a specific exclusion criterion but does not elaborate on general usage scenarios.

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