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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful non-schema fact — the required infrastructure_asset_comments:write scope — but says nothing about whether the update is partial, what happens when 'comment' is omitted, or whether changes are reversible.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the prerequisite stated second. No filler or 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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource, the lookup key, and the required scope. The only real gap is the semantics of the optional 'comment' field (does omission clear the text or leave it untouched), which an agent would have to infer.

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%, with both 'id' (Comment ID, uuid) and 'comment' (Comment text, maxLength 10000) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's "by ID" adds no meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 infrastructure asset comment") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), so the agent can distinguish it from the create/get/delete/update siblings in the naming family. It adds no explicit differentiation from siblings such as update_asset_comment or update_infrastructure_asset_cost, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g. delete_infrastructure_asset_comment or update_infrastructure_asset). The scope sentence implies an authorization prerequisite but does not describe operational context.

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