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

Annotations already declare this is a write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, non-idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds the auth scope requirement, which is useful beyond annotations. It does not describe duplicate-handling or error behavior, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the scope requirement. No wasted words; appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 association-creation tool with full schema coverage and descriptive annotations, the description covers the core purpose and auth scope. It does not explain behavior on duplicate associations (non-idempotent) or return values, but no output schema exists and annotations hint at the mutation nature. Largely complete.

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 each parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 'Link' and the resource pair 'part to an asset', and clarifies it creates an association. Differentiates well from create_part and create_asset, but does not explicitly distinguish from the analogous create_infrastructure_asset_part sibling.

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 action description implies usage, and the required scope (asset_parts:write) provides a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., update_asset_part, create_infrastructure_asset_part) or when-not guidance, leaving usage only implied.

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