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

Annotations already declare the tool is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: an explicit optimistic-concurrency contract (MCP_CONFLICT, no partial write when the note changed after expectedUpdatedAt). It omits permission/auth requirements and what the success response contains.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the essential purpose plus the failure semantics are front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information (what changes, when to use, how it fails).

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations carry the mutation/idempotency profile. The concurrency preconditions are well covered, but the description leaves the semantics and provenance of idempotencyKey and expectedUpdatedAt unexplained for a 5-parameter, fully-required tool.

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 0% across 5 required parameters, including a nested patch object, so the description must compensate. It does explain that patch targets title/body/pin and gestures at expectedUpdatedAt via the conflict rule, but says nothing about projectId scoping or what idempotencyKey is for. Partial compensation, not full.

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 (change/update) applied to a specific resource (one note) and enumerates the mutatable fields (title, body, pin). The resource noun cleanly separates it from the sibling clean_notes_update_task without needing to open either 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?

"Use when the user asks to edit a note" gives a clear trigger condition, and the conflict rule implicitly tells the agent when this call will fail. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., create_note for new notes, get_note to fetch the current expectedUpdatedAt) or stating prerequisites, so no exclusions are provided.

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