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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partly covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing: it does not say what state change occurs, whether the note's prior resolution history is preserved, or whether calling it on an unresolved note errors.

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 five-word sentence with zero padding, and the verb is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema, one undocumented required parameter, and a rich set of note-related siblings, the definition should explain the state transition and error conditions. Almost none of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at the contract.

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 only 50% — projectId is documented in the schema while noteId is not. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required noteId (e.g., whether it accepts a note id from list_notes or a composite id).

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Reopen a ... note') that is clear and unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling note tools (resolve_note, update_note, add_note, delete_note, list_notes), leaving the agent to infer the difference from names alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the precondition that the note must currently be resolved, and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must already know the note lifecycle to pick this correctly.

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