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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations by stating the required auth scope ('asset_comments:write'), exactly the kind of authorization prerequisite the rubric credits. It omits any return/confirmation behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action before the scope prerequisite. It is efficiently structured, though the extreme terseness leaves valuable usage context on the table.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate: it conveys the action and the required scope. It does not address whether the target asset must exist, whether comments are moderated/immutable, or how to distinguish this from the infrastructure/project/work-order comment siblings.

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 both required parameters (asset_id, comment) are documented in the schema with types and format constraints. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation meaning beyond that, 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+resource ('Create a new comment on an asset'), so the purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from create_asset, create_asset_document, etc. by resource. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with the near-identical sibling create_infrastructure_asset_comment, which an agent would have to infer from the name alone.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. With siblings like create_asset_comment, create_infrastructure_asset_comment, create_project_comment, and create_work_order_comment all present, the description offers no guidance on which comment tool applies to which entity.

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