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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing authorization behavior, exact error semantics, mention-list replacement, notification side effects for added/removed teammates, implicit mention removal when going private, and constraints around team notes and group conversations. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs before mutating a note.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with what changes, followed by permissions, mention semantics, and sharing constraints. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no redundancy.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers permissions, side effects, edge cases, and sharing constraints thoroughly. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

With schema coverage at only 25%, the description compensates substantially: it explains that mentions replaces the entire list and triggers notifications, clarifies visibility values as private vs team, and notes that going private removes mentions. It does not elaborate on note_id or body length limits, but those are adequately covered by the schema.

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 (change) and resource (the user's own notes), enumerating the mutable fields: body, visibility, and mentions. It is clearly distinguishable from add_note, delete_note, and read-only siblings.

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?

Establishes clear preconditions: only the author can edit, a teammate's note yields 'not your note,' sharing requires team notes enabled, and group conversation notes stay private. It does not explicitly name add_note or delete_note as alternatives, but the context is strong enough to select this tool confidently.

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