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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds that a reply explaining the change is part of resolving, but says nothing about whether resolution is reversible, what happens to the note afterwards, or whether the reply is mandatory.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a concrete inline example of the reply content. Nothing redundant; every clause adds information.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description covers the core action and the non-obvious reply convention. The remaining gap is the lifecycle question (can a resolved note be reopened, is reply required), which is a real but modest omission.

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 only 33% (only projectId is documented), so the description carries a bigger burden. It does add real meaning to the bare 'reply' string parameter by specifying its purpose and shape (short summary of what changed, with an example), but leaves reply optionality and noteId semantics unaddressed.

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 ('Mark a note as done'), which is a distinct state transition that separates it from update_note, delete_note and reopen_note. It never names those siblings explicitly, but 'done' plus the reply rationale makes the operation 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?

The phrase 'mark a note as done' implies the situation, but the description gives no when/when-not guidance and never mentions reopen_note as the way to undo a resolution. The agent has to infer the lifecycle from sibling names.

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