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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the required write scope, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about partial-update semantics (e.g., whether omitted fields are cleared) — a material gap for an update tool flagged destructive.

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 zero filler, and the core action and targeting are front-loaded ahead of the scope prerequisite. Nothing is redundant.

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 link-update tool with no output schema, the annotations cover mutability and the schema covers fields, so the essentials are present. What is missing is behavior on partial updates and whether the destructive flag refers to the link itself — gaps an agent would want closed before calling it.

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 each of the four fields documented, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only adds 'by ID' for the required id; it contributes no extra meaning for notes, feature_id, or project_id, 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource, and importantly clarifies the entity is a many-to-many link ('project ↔ infrastructure feature link'), which distinguishes it from sibling update_project_asset and update_infrastructure_asset. It is clear but does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Provides a prerequisite (project_infrastructure_assets:write scope) and the ID-based targeting, which implies editing an existing link. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, and no mention of the create/delete siblings that would otherwise be candidates.

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