shelf_update_asset

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful traits beyond that: partial-update semantics (omitted fields stay unchanged) and, critically, that `tags` is a full-set replacement so callers must resend every tag or lose the rest.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two constraints that most affect correct invocation. Zero 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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the mutation model well but omits per-parameter meaning and any note on which fields are optional versus required. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25% of 8 parameters, so the description carries a heavy compensation burden. It adds meaning for `tags` only and says nothing about orgId, valuation, categoryId, customFields, title, or description, leaving most parameters documented nowhere.

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 and resource ('Update fields of an asset'), which clearly separates it from shelf_update_asset_location and shelf_update_booking by naming the asset as the target. It does not explicitly contrast itself against the other update siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus shelf_update_asset_location, shelf_bulk_update_location, or shelf_create_asset, and no prerequisites or permissions mentioned. The only guidance is semantic (omitted fields unchanged), not conditional.

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