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

Annotations already state this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds the write scope requirement (infrastructure_asset_documents:write) and the upload dependency, which are useful auth/workflow context beyond the annotations. It does not cover failure modes or response behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the workflow, then the permission requirement. Nothing is redundant or 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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite workflow, and auth scope, which is nearly all an agent needs. It stops short of describing the return value or post-create behavior, but annotations and schema carry the rest.

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 in the schema, including that file_path comes from create_upload_url. The description's mention of file_path merely repeats the schema rather than adding format or validation semantics, 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 and resource ("Attach document metadata to an infrastructure feature"), which is enough to tell it apart from sibling document tools like create_asset_document and create_project_document by attachment target. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 concrete prerequisite sequence: upload bytes via create_upload_url first, then pass the returned file_path here. That is strong when-to-use guidance, though it names no when-not conditions or alternative document tools.

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