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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the safety picture is largely covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful non-annotation detail — the required infrastructure_asset_parts:write scope — but omits update semantics such as whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared.

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, and the core action is front-loaded before the permission requirement. It is appropriately tight, though for a destructive multi-field mutation it borders on under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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, non-readOnly update with four fields and no output schema, an agent still lacks the partial-update contract (are unspecified fields left intact?), error behavior on unknown ID, and any sibling disambiguation. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the fields, so the omission is not severe, but the definition is 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%, so the schema already documents id, part_id, quantity, and feature_id. The description only restates that the association is addressed by ID and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Update an infrastructure asset part association") and states the identifier-based addressing ("by ID"), which is clearer than the bare title alone. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the near-identical sibling update_asset_part, nor explain the infrastructure-vs-standard-asset distinction.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling alternatives are referenced despite update_asset_part, create_infrastructure_asset_part, and delete_infrastructure_asset_part existing. The only context offered is the required scope, which is a prerequisite rather than usage routing.

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