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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context the annotations do not: the required 'asset_parts:write' scope. It does not warn that, because idempotentHint=false, repeated calls may create duplicate part associations.

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, the core action front-loaded and the permission requirement trailing. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical restatement of the action is slightly padded.

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 simple non-destructive link-creation tool with full schema coverage, existing annotations, and no output schema, this is nearly complete. The only meaningful gap is disambiguation from the infrastructure-asset-part sibling and any note about duplicate-association behavior.

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% with three params documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about asset_id, part_id, or the optional quantity beyond what the schema already states.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Link a part to an asset') and parenthetically clarifies the resulting entity ('asset-part association'), so the purpose is unmistakable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling create_infrastructure_asset_part, which an agent cannot disambiguate from this text 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling create_* tools. The only operative guidance is the scope requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than routing help.

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