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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say that supplying 'content' overwrites the existing text irreversibly, that resolving a thread is effectively a state change others will see, or that status only applies to top-level notes (that constraint lives only in the schema).

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 well-formed sentence with the verb and the two modes front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool rather than too long, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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, out-of-band-free write tool with no output schema and an undocumented required note_id, the description is thin: it does not cover what happens on success, whether partial updates are allowed, or the overwrite/resolve consequences. An agent could call it but would not know the side effects it is signing up for.

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 67%, with 'content' and 'status' documented in the schema; the description redundantly restates both operations but adds no format or constraint detail. The required 'note_id' parameter carries no description anywhere, so the gap is not compensated by the prose.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Edit the text of an editor note') and enumerates the two operating modes: content editing and thread status change. It is clearly distinguishable from read-side siblings like wp_get_comments, though it never names an alternative (e.g., wp_create_note or wp_update_comment).

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 two modes of use are implied by the sentence, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to a sibling such as wp_create_note for new notes or wp_update_comment for comment threads. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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