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

Annotations establish readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds important behavior beyond those flags: full text replacement semantics, archived original source for clips/articles, revision-backed undo, version-conflict handling, and optional rename. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and compact: one sentence defines replacement scope by item type, then optional rename, then the version precondition, then undoability. Every sentence supplies distinct operational detail; there is no filler.

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?

Given a mutation with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: item-type behavior, versioning prerequisite, retry policy, and reversibility. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without opening additional documentation.

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 75%, and the description adds meaning for authoredContent (full note text versus extracted-body override), hubTitle (rename), and expectedVersion (fresh get_item read plus conflict retry). The id parameter is left to the schema, so the description does not fully replace schema documentation.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('user-authored text layer') across notes, clips, and articles, and notes that hubTitle can rename the item. It clearly implies an existing saved item, but it never names a sibling such as save_note to explicitly distinguish create-versus-update.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (expectedVersion from a fresh get_item read) and a retry rule on VERSION_CONFLICT, which tells the agent when the call is ready and how to recover. It does not explicitly say when to use this over save_note or update_tags, or when not to use it.

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