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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), destructive (destructiveHint=true), idempotent operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavior detail not in the annotations: the required 'infrastructure_asset_inspections:write' scope. It does not explain what is destroyed, or partial-update semantics.

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 padding, with the core action and its required identifier front-loaded before the permission requirement. Nothing could be removed 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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with a nested 'defects' object and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what, key, auth) but omits update semantics: whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, and what the response contains. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 every one of the 8 parameters (notes, method, defects, attachments, inspector_id, condition_score, inspection_date) is already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by ID', adding no semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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) plus the identifying key (by ID), which cleanly separates it from create_infrastructure_asset_inspection and get_infrastructure_asset_inspection. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many other update_* siblings in this large tool family.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as update_infrastructure_asset or bulk_update, nor any prerequisites like 'the inspection must already exist'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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