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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it discloses that code/category/is_builtin are immutable, that builtin-class edits return 409, and that an infrastructure_feature_classes:write scope is required. This covers auth needs and a specific error behavior the annotations (destructive/idempotent hints) do not convey.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and identifier, then the immutability and scope constraints. No filler or repetition; every clause carries 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 a mutation tool with clear annotations and full schema coverage, the description is largely sufficient: it covers the identifier, immutability, conflict behavior, and required scope. It does not describe whether updates are partial/merge or what is returned, but no output schema exists to demand that.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the useful fact that `code` is the immutable addressing key, but it adds nothing for icon/label/color_hex/sort_order. Note it also references category/is_builtin fields that do not appear in 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 feature class'), with the addressing key ('by code') called out. The name and resource are distinct enough to separate it from the many sibling update_* tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The reader must infer that this is the mutation counterpart to get_/list_infrastructure_feature_classes and create_infrastructure_feature_class.

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