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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description corroborates this by stating the body replaces the current one, plus adds the Markdown-to-native conversion behavior and the confirm gate. These are useful details beyond the annotations, though it doesn't say what happens to formatting not expressible in Markdown.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the format caveat and the prerequisite. Every sentence contributes and nothing is padded.

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 and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key operational facts: field selection, Markdown conversion, id discovery, and confirm requirement. It omits only edge-case behavior such as what happens if neither title nor body is supplied.

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 all five parameters in detail, including the body format and note_id/note_name interchangeability. The description mainly repeats those hints rather than adding new semantics, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ('Updates an existing note in Apple Notes') and names the exact fields it mutates ('title and/or body'). This clearly separates it from create_note and delete_note in the sibling set without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly to list_notes or search_notes for obtaining note_id and states the confirm=true prerequisite. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g. to create vs. modify), so it stops short of a 5, but the operational context is clear.

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