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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: the required asset_condition_assessments:write scope (auth context) and the caveat that the purchase-cost writeback is create-only and cannot be triggered here — a genuine behavioral edge case not visible in the annotations.

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 core action, followed by the scope prerequisite and the writeback caveat. 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?

For a mutation tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, this is nearly complete: it names the resource, key, required scope, and a subtle limitation. It could still note whether unspecified fields are left unchanged (partial update semantics), which is the one remaining inference an agent must make.

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 8 parameters (id, notes, method, defects, assessed_on, assessor_id, condition_score, replacement_cost) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., partial update semantics) beyond what the schema provides, 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 (update), resource (asset condition assessment), and lookup key (by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from create_asset_condition_assessment, get_asset_condition_assessment, delete_asset_condition_assessment, and list_asset_condition_assessments without needing 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?

The 'by ID' and 'existing' phrasing implies this is for modifying an already-created assessment, and the scope line gives a prerequisite. However, it never states when to prefer this over bulk_update or when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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