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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the write-scope requirement, which annotations cannot express. However it never explains what 'destructive' means here or whether omitting a field clears it, so the added context is thin.

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 no filler; purpose is front-loaded before the prerequisite. Nothing is redundant with the title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and auth but omits partial-update semantics (do unspecified fields persist or clear?) and any confirmation/irreversibility note. Given annotations carry the safety flags and the schema documents every parameter, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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% across all 8 parameters, including the intricate purchase_order_id semantics ('null clears it'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming 'by ID', 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 ('Update an infrastructure asset cost') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which clearly separates it from create_/delete_ variants and from the non-infrastructure update_asset_cost sibling. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating at the top tier.

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 only usage guidance is the prerequisite scope ('Requires infrastructure_asset_costs:write scope'), which is useful. There is no statement of when to choose this over update_asset_cost, when not to use it, or what conditions must hold (e.g., the cost must exist).

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