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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds the auth scope requirement, which is genuinely beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose the destructive semantics (what the destructiveHint implies, e.g. field clearing) nor whether the update is partial or full-replace.

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 terse sentences, zero filler, with the action and the auth requirement front-loaded. Nothing extraneous to trim.

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 update tool with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the essentials are present. The key remaining gap is update semantics: the schema explicitly supports sending null to clear criticality, implying partial-update behavior, yet the description never confirms this, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 all 7 parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the criticality null-clears behavior). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update an existing infrastructure network by ID'), which cleanly separates it from create_infrastructure_network, delete_infrastructure_network, and get_infrastructure_network. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling or distinguishing scope, but the verb+resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

It names the required scope (infrastructure_networks:write), which is a useful precondition, but gives no guidance on when to use this update versus related updates (update_infrastructure_zone, update_infrastructure_asset) or when-not-to-use it. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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