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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership requirement and names the compare-and-set mechanism, but it never states whether the update is partial (PATCH) or a full replacement, nor what happens to the eight optional fields when omitted — the most consequential behavior for this tool.

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; the parenthetical keeps the concurrency guard in the right place. It is efficient but arguably undersized given how many undocumented parameters the tool carries.

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?

With 10 parameters, 20% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation semantics question left open, the description should say what an update means and what the fields control. As written, an agent cannot call this correctly without guessing at most of the payload.

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 20%; eight of ten parameters (color, width, height, content, z_index, position_x, position_y, triggers_at) have no documentation in either schema or description. The description only references expected_updated_at, whose semantics the schema already explains in detail, so it adds essentially no compensating meaning.

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 (update) and resource (sticky_note) and adds an ownership constraint ('you own'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like sticky_note_create or sticky_note_delete, but the intent is 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 ownership phrase implies a precondition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sticky_note_create, sticky_note_dismiss, or sticky_note_delete. Nothing tells the agent whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, which is the key usage decision for a 10-param updater.

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