CDP set asset supported

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers almost none. 'toggle asset support' vaguely implies a mutation, but it doesn't describe what 'asset support' entails, potential side effects, permission requirements, or system impacts. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies system state, leaving the agent with critical gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with 'Admin: toggle asset support.'—a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, as it under-specifies critical details. While structurally efficient, it prioritizes conciseness over informativeness.

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 complexity implied by administrative functions and the lack of annotations (0% coverage), output schema, or detailed parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what 'asset support' means, the effects of toggling, error conditions, or return values. For a tool with likely significant system impact, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'asset' and 'supported' implicitly but doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or valid values. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'asset' refers to a token type or identifier, or what 'supported' toggles in practical terms. This leaves both parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Admin: toggle asset support' restates the title 'CDP set asset supported' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('toggle') and resource ('asset support') but lacks specificity about what 'asset support' means in this context. Compared to siblings like 'strato.cdp.set-asset-paused', it doesn't clearly differentiate the exact administrative function.

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 minimal guidance with 'Admin:' implying administrative privileges, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or sibling comparisons are mentioned, such as how this differs from 'strato.cdp.set-asset-paused' or other CDP tools. The guidance is insufficient for an agent to make informed decisions.

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