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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description adds context annotations do not carry: the required infrastructure_asset_documents:write scope and the two-step upload dependency, which materially affects how the agent must sequence calls.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the workflow constraint, then the auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description plus full schema coverage give the agent enough to invoke correctly: purpose, prerequisite ordering, and required scope. Missing only a note on what is returned, which is minor for a create-metadata operation.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning to file_path (that it comes from create_upload_url) but does not expand on the other six fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Attach document metadata to an infrastructure feature'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling document tools (create_asset_document, create_contract_document, create_project_document) by scoping to infrastructure features. An agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite workflow: upload bytes via create_upload_url first, then pass the returned file_path here. This names the alternative tool and the ordering condition. It stops short of stating when not to use it, so it is not fully 5.

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