Update infrastructure asset document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the auth/scope requirement, but says nothing about whether this is a partial or full replacement, what a destructive overwrite means for omitted fields, or undo behavior.

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, the action and identifier are front-loaded, and the scope prerequisite follows with zero filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 metadata update with full schema documentation and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose and authorization adequately. The only missing piece is clarification that omitted optional fields are not changed (or are cleared, given destructiveHint).

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% and all six optional metadata fields plus the id are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing beyond 'by ID' — no mention of partial-update semantics for the optional fields.

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?

Names a specific verb (update) and resource (infrastructure asset document metadata) with an ID-based scope. It doesn't distinguish itself from near-siblings like update_asset_document or update_project_document, but the resource 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?

States the required scope (infrastructure_asset_documents:write), which is a real usage prerequisite. It gives no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance and no indication of which fields can be updated or when to prefer bulk_update.

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