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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'replace the full body.' It goes further than the annotations by disclosing auth scope ('Account access applies'), absence of an author-only restriction, no board transition, and no publication/Scan side effects. Return behavior is also stated.

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?

Four compact clauses, front-loaded with the purpose and replacement semantics. The terse semicolon-separated constraint phrases are efficient, though slightly telegraphic.

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 4-param mutation with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, replacement semantics, auth scope, and explicitly disclaims adjacent side effects. Return values need not be explained since the output schema exists.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally. The description adds real meaning on the body parameter: it is a full overwrite (not append) and null/omission is rejected, which goes beyond the schema's minLength=1 constraint.

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+resource ('Update one saved note') that is clearly distinguishable from the create/delete/list note siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the update verb 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?

Adds a usage-critical constraint ('Replace the full body... omission/null is invalid'), which tells the agent this is a full replacement rather than a merge. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus update_recommendation_action or create_recommendation_note, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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