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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses useful behavior: rewriting records the sentence as user-authored, omitted fields stay unchanged (partial-update semantics), the call requires edit permission and customer consent, and it triggers no server interpretation or paid work. This adds meaningful context on top of the destructive/idempotent hints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by effects, return value, preconditions and cost. Every sentence carries information, though the final clause about no server interpretation reads slightly out of place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers action, side effects, partial-update behavior and permissions. It is essentially complete for an agent to invoke this mutation correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents factId, status, projectId and statement with sources and constraints. The description matches the fields functionally but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states specific verbs (approve, reject, rewrite) and a precise resource (one reference note), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from closely named siblings like studio_reference_note_add or studio_reference_notes_list.

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 states the preconditions for correct use: edit permission on the project and the customer having chosen the change. This clarifies the context of invocation but names no alternative tool or explicit when-not-to-use case.

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