Update asset tag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them — it never mentions the mandatory confirm flag, what an update destroys or overwrites, or idempotency/retry semantics, despite idempotentHint=false.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is so short that the front-loaded content is the only content.

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 destructive mutation with a nested body, a confirm gate, and no output schema, the description omits any mention of the confirmation requirement, the result of a successful update, or the payload/payload_file exclusivity rules. Annotations and the rich schema compensate for most of this, leaving the definition merely adequate.

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 100% and all 7 parameters (including the nested payload, payload_file mutual exclusivity, account, confirm, and Idempotency_Key) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Update) and resource (asset tag) scoped to the authenticated user's fal Assets library. It is clear enough to distinguish from create_asset_tag/delete_asset_tag by name, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from the closely related set_asset_tags_for_asset, assign_asset_tag, or unassign_asset_tag siblings.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as set_asset_tags_for_asset or assign_asset_tag. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.

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