Update infrastructure asset comment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful piece of non-annotation context, the required infrastructure_asset_comments:write scope, but says nothing about how the mutation behaves (e.g. whether existing comment text is overwritten).

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 no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the scope requirement follows. It is efficient, though it is on the sparse side for a destructive mutation tool.

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 simple two-parameter update with no output schema this is roughly adequate: purpose, key, and auth scope are covered. It leaves open the semantics of a partial update (does omitting 'comment' clear it or leave it unchanged?) despite an idempotentHint that invites that question.

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% — both 'id' and 'comment' are documented in the schema, including the UUID format and 10,000 character limit — so the description's 'by ID' adds only confirmation. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 an infrastructure asset comment') plus an addressing key ('by ID'), which is enough to distinguish it from create_infrastructure_asset_comment and get_infrastructure_asset_comment. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the analogous update_asset_comment, so it falls short of the 5 tier.

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?

Usage is implied by the name — you call it when an existing comment needs modifying — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites beyond scope, and no pointer to alternatives such as update_asset_comment for a different comment type.

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