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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds nothing on top of that. Notably, idempotentHint=false is counterintuitive for a rename operation and the description never clarifies whether the note is replaced or appended, or what happens on a number collision.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the trigger condition leads. It is efficient, though it is so short that the 'Use this when...' framing consumes most of the space without carrying much content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description should carry more: it omits the identifying parameters, permission requirements, note-null semantics, and the odd non-idempotent behavior flagged by annotations.

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 25% — just the formula parameter is documented in the schema. The description names 'note' and 'number' but never explains that formula + version identify the target, that number is bounded 1-100000, or that passing note=null clears it.

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 names a specific action (change) applied to specific fields of a specific resource (a version's note or number), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as update_formula, save_version, or rename_folder.

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?

It supplies a trigger condition ('when the user wants to change a version's note or the number it carries'), which is more than nothing. It gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., when to renumber vs. create a new version), so usage is only implied.

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