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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so safety semantics are partly covered. The description usefully adds the required auth scope (project_infrastructure_assets:write), which annotations do not carry, but it omits update semantics such as whether omitted fields are cleared or preserved, which matters for a destructive-flagged mutation.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the scope requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity, non-nested, four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers identity and auth but leaves update semantics and the meaning of destructiveHint unexplained. Adequate but with a clear gap for a tool flagged as destructive.

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 all four parameters (id, notes, feature_id, project_id) documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the notion that 'id' is a link ID, which is already implied by the schema; 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 and resource ('Update a project ↔ infrastructure feature link') and identifies the keying field ('by ID'), which is enough to separate it from the many update_project_* siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself against close relatives like update_infrastructure_asset or delete_project_infrastructure_asset.

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?

The description names a required scope but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_project_infrastructure_asset for new links, delete_* for removal, or update_infrastructure_asset for the feature itself). There is no statement of prerequisites or exclusions beyond the scope string.

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