update_asset

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

The description confirms the mutation (update) and notes that cover_image is automatically uploaded by the SDK. It does not disclose side effects or edge cases, but the annotations already cover read-only and destructive hints. Some additional context is added, but not extensive.

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 succinct and well-organized, with parameter explanations embedded directly. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.

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 provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly, including parameter semantics and the SDK behavior for cover_image. It does not mention output or errors, but no output schema is expected, and the tool's action is straightforward.

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 description explains two key parameters (workspace_id and cover_image) with actionable guidance. The remaining parameters (name, asset_id, read_only) are self-explanatory from their names and the tool's purpose. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by clarifying complex inputs.

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 an asset's display name, read-only flag, and optionally its cover image. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that update other resources (e.g., update_workspace, update_channel).

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 implies the tool is for updating assets and provides helpful guidance on the workspace_id and cover_image parameters, including how to obtain workspace IDs. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for typical use.

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