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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-read-only semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-annotation fact: the required 'asset_documents:write' scope. However, it says nothing about partial vs. full replacement semantics for the 8 optional fields, which is exactly the risk implied by destructiveHint=true.

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 short sentences with the required identifier and auth scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for a 9-parameter mutation tool, but the sentence economy itself is good.

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 destructive, multi-field update with no output schema, the description should clarify partial-update behavior, whether omitted fields are cleared, and what failure modes exist. It covers only the ID and the write scope, leaving the operational contract thin.

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 nine parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum for category and constraints on name/file_path. The description only repeats the ID being required. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Update an asset document by ID'), which is clearly distinguishable from create_asset_document and delete_asset_document. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling update_infrastructure_asset_document, which an agent could easily confuse for a similar asset-document update.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus update_infrastructure_asset_document, bulk_update, or update_attachment. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions beyond the scope note.

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