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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses partial-update semantics, the side effect that a note moved into a full-role shared folder changes ownership, and that the reference graph is rebuilt on save. It does not state whether the tags array replaces or merges with existing tags, nor what the response contains — real gaps for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded and efficient: the partial-update rule and the log_append redirect come before the longer chip documentation. The enumerated chip patterns are lengthy but each maps to a distinct resource type, so they earn their place; the trailing example is slightly redundant with the preceding syntax description.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must supply everything about behavior, and it does for the risky parts (move, ownership, reference graph). It falls short on tag replacement semantics and on error cases such as moving a note you do not own.

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 coverage is only 40%, and the description compensates substantially for folderId (move + ownership transfer rules) and content (chip syntax $[note:id:label] and the other chip variants, with a worked example). However, `tags` and `title` semantics are left entirely to the schema, and replace-vs-append behavior for tags is never clarified.

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 ("Actualiza una nota existente") and immediately narrows scope with "(parcial). Solo se modifican los campos enviados", which distinguishes it from notes_create and from wholesale rewrites. The sibling routing (log_append for history lines) further separates it from adjacent tools.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: do not append history entries to the note body, use log_append instead. It also states what folderId does (moves the note) and the specific constraint on moving into a folder shared with full role. Alternatives and exclusions are named rather than inferred.

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