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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the composite uniqueness rule on (feature_id, part_id), the concrete failure mode (409 on duplicate), and the required infrastructure_asset_parts:write scope. Annotations only supply the generic non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile; the description adds the operational constraints an agent needs before calling.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint and auth requirement following in decreasing order of importance. Every clause carries information.

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?

Covers action, key constraint, error behavior, and auth scope for a three-parameter write tool, with no output schema to explain. The return payload on success is unstated, a minor gap for an operation whose annotations already flag it as non-idempotent.

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% and documents each field individually, so the baseline is 3. The description adds relational semantics the schema lacks: that feature_id and part_id form a unique pair, which affects how an agent should sequence calls before retrying.

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 pair ('Associate a part with an infrastructure feature'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling create_asset_part, nor from update_infrastructure_asset_part, leaving the agent to infer which entity type applies.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the required identifiers, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the non-infrastructure counterpart create_asset_part, and no pointer to update_/delete_/bulk_ variants for related operations. Minimum viable routing information.

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