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 safety profile is covered. The description's 'Replaces the existing text (overwrite)' usefully corroborates that prior text is lost, but it adds nothing on permissions, ownership validation, or failure modes.

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-loaded with the action and the destructive consequence before the arg list. The Args block repeats schema names, but at 0% schema coverage that restatement earns its place; nothing is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the annotations cover mutability. However, a mutation on a nested resource should say what happens if rewrite_id does not belong to note_id or does not exist, and that omission is material for correct invocation.

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%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and largely does: it explains that note_id is the owning note, rewrite_id the target rewrite, and improved_text the replacement content. The relationship check (must rewrite_id belong to note_id?) is left unstated, so not a full 5.

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: edit the text of an existing rewrite/translation, with the overwrite semantics spelled out. It is clearly distinguishable from rewrite_note (creates a rewrite) and get_rewrite (reads one).

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?

The phrase 'existing rewrite' implies this is for modifying rather than creating, which implicitly separates it from rewrite_note, but no alternative is named and no when-not conditions are given. It also doesn't say whether this preserves history or bumps the rewrite's version.

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