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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation and endpoint. It does not mention side effects, permissions required, whether the update replaces or patches the note, or any response formatting. The PUT method implies replacement, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the HTTP method and path for precision. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description is minimal and omits important context such as the behavior of the update (full vs partial), expected response, and rationale for the 'created via API' restriction. Even though the schema covers parameters, the complexity of the tool (nested body, meta-parameters like dry_run and confirm) warrants additional explanation beyond what is provided.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the endpoint, but it doesn't need to because the schema already explains each parameter. No additional value is provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Update'), the resource ('a Lever note'), and the specific endpoint via PUT. It distinguishes from sibling note tools like create_opportunity_note, delete_opportunity_note, get_opportunity_note, and list_opportunity_notes by focusing on the update operation.

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 description implies a usage constraint by specifying 'created via API', which suggests this tool is only for notes created through the API, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion scenarios. No alternatives are named, and there is no direct guidance on when to choose this tool.

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