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 risky/mutating nature is covered structurally. The description adds only the list of mutable fields, without stating permission requirements or that summary/tag edits overwrite existing data (that detail lives in the schema, not the description).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the mutable surface come first and every word 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 mutation tool the safety profile is covered by annotations and all five parameters are fully described in the schema, so nothing critical is missing. However, the description never states that updates are partial (only supplied fields change) or what happens on an unknown note_id, leaving modest gaps.

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 each of the 5 parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description merely mirrors the schema's field list and adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint detail.

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 (a note), and enumerates the mutable dimensions (status, tags, summary). It is distinguishable from siblings like create_note and read_note, though it does not explicitly name the boundary between them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative (e.g., 'use create_note for new notes; this only modifies existing ones'). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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