Rename an asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: the underlying image is preserved and the call is free. It still omits validation/error behavior and what happens if neither name nor role is provided.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key scoping constraint and the cost note. No filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter description coverage, the description should convey required vs optional fields and the role enum. As written, the critical invocation details (asset_id required, at least one of name/role) exist only in the raw schema.

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 description carries the burden, and it only names the two mutable fields at a conceptual level. It never mentions the required asset_id, the 1-80 character name bound, or the five allowed role values, so an agent must open the schema to call this correctly.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair (rename an asset / change its role) and distinguishes it from create_asset, delete_asset and get_asset by making explicit that only metadata changes. Slightly under-covers the 'update' framing in the tool name, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by 'rename ... or change its role', and 'the picture itself does not change' rules out regeneration use cases. However it never says when to choose this over siblings like create_asset, nor whether one or both of name/role must be supplied.

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