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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered structurally. The description does add one genuinely non-inferable fact, the required infrastructure_asset_documents:write scope, but it never says whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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, zero filler, and the operation plus key is front-loaded ahead of the scope prerequisite. Nothing here could be trimmed without losing 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation the description covers identity, scope, and auth but not the semantics of updating a subset of fields, and no output schema exists to fall back on. The annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile, so the remaining gap is modest but real.

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% and all seven fields are self-documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the id-is-required framing and the word 'metadata', without clarifying partial-update vs full-replace semantics for the optional fields.

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 (infrastructure asset document), scope (metadata), and lookup key (by ID). An agent can distinguish it from create_infrastructure_asset_document and from the non-infrastructure update_asset_document. It misses an explicit sibling callout, so it lands just short of 5.

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 guidance on when to choose this over update_asset_document, update_infrastructure_asset_comment, or bulk_update, and no note about when not to use it. The only usable signal is the implicit scope requirement in the second sentence.

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