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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety and repeatability are covered by structured data. The description adds real context beyond that — partial-update semantics (only passed fields change), an audit trail (recorded in History under your name), and a permission requirement (permission to change tasks) — but it does not contradict anything and the annotations already carry the core behavioral profile.

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?

Front-loads the key decision (update instead of duplicate) before identification and mechanics. Five short sentences, each carrying distinct information — identification, partial-update semantics, audit, permission — with no repetition of the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what changes (only passed fields), how to target the record (id or exact title), the ambiguity case (handled in schema), the audit trail, and the permission prerequisite. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 every parameter (id, match, body, title, project, category) is already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description contributes one meaningful extra: the partial-update contract that unspecified fields are preserved, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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States a specific verb and resource (change a context note) and immediately scopes it to notes that are out of date. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling fenbs_add_context_note by explaining that updating is preferable to adding a contradicting note, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use (the note is out of date) and the alternative it replaces (adding another contradictory note). It also routes the agent to fenbs_list_context_notes when an id is needed, so both the when and the how-to-find-the-target are covered.

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