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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds two pieces of behavioral context annotations cannot convey: the required asset_documents:write scope and the ordering dependency on create_upload_url. Mentioning that repeated calls are non-idempotent would be a further improvement, but the added context is solid.

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 tight sentence plus a scope clause. The action is front-loaded, the prerequisite is parenthesized compactly, and no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent most needs that structured fields do not: the auth scope and the required upload-first workflow. Return-value behavior is not a gap since there is no output schema, but a note on non-idempotency or failure behavior would complete the picture.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters (name, asset_id, file_path, category, file_size, etc.) are already documented in the schema. The description only hints at file_path through the upload prerequisite and adds nothing about the enum category values or the optional fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Create an asset document record') and distinguishes it implicitly from the many sibling document tools (create_project_document, create_contract_document, create_infrastructure_asset_document) by tying it to the asset entity. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: the file must be uploaded first via create_upload_url, and the file_path argument depends on that response. That is clear contextual guidance for sequencing. It stops short of naming when-not to use it or alternative document tools, so not a 5.

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