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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing auth requirements (infrastructure_feature_classes:write scope), which fields are immutable (code, category, is_builtin), and the concrete failure mode (409 for builtin classes). It does not clarify whether omitted fields are left unchanged (partial update) or cleared, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by immutability and auth facts. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and full schema coverage, the remaining burden is behavioral, and the description covers scope, immutability and the 409 case. It still leaves update semantics (partial vs full replace, effect on dependent assets) unstated.

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 coverage is 100%, so icon, label, color_hex and sort_order are already documented in the schema; the description adds no syntax or constraint detail for them. It does flag code as the addressing/immutable key and mentions category/is_builtin, but those two are not accepted parameters, so the guidance is only partly usable.

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 feature class) plus the addressing key (code) and the scope restriction (tenant-defined). Combined with the update_/create_/delete_/get_/list_ sibling naming, an agent can select this tool without inspecting the schema.

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?

Implicitly the tool is for modifying an existing class addressed by code, and the description supplies prerequisites (write scope, immutability). However, it names no alternative tools and never states when not to use it (e.g. use create_infrastructure_feature_class to define new classes, or update_* for asset-level changes).

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