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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the description need not restate that this writes data. It usefully adds the required authorization scope, but says nothing about what the destructive hint means in practice, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or what a failed update looks like.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the authorization requirement placed second. Nothing 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 four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope but omits update semantics (partial vs. full replacement), error/not-found behavior, and any reference to the get/list siblings an agent would use to find the association ID first. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 id, part_id, quantity, and feature_id all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, such as whether part_id or feature_id can be cleared, or what the update does with the single required id.

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 part association by ID'), so the agent knows exactly which entity is mutated and that it targets an existing association rather than creating one. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the nearby sibling update_asset_part or from bulk_update, which share the same verb+resource shape.

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?

Usage is implied (update an existing association when you already know its ID), and it supplies one concrete prerequisite in the required scope. There is no statement of when to prefer this over update_asset_part, bulk_update, or delete_infrastructure_asset_part, and no exclusions are given.

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