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 elsewhere. The description contributes the auth scope requirement, which annotations do not carry, but says nothing about whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, which matters for a destructive update.

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, no filler, with the identity/lookup constraint front-loaded before the authorization requirement. Every clause earns its place.

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 an 8-parameter destructive update with full schema coverage, a rich set of annotations, and no output schema, the description covers identity and authorization adequately. The one gap is partial-update semantics, which the 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% across all 8 parameters, including the nested defects object, so the schema already documents them. The description only restates that lookup is by ID, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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) and resource (infrastructure asset inspection) and identifies the lookup mechanism (by ID). It separates itself from the create/delete/get/list siblings of the same resource through the verb, but does not name an alternative tool the way a 5 would.

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 adds one real prerequisite, the required write scope, which is genuine usage context. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over other update_* tools or when an update is appropriate versus creating/deleting, so usage is only implied.

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