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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the authorship requirement, the concurrency protection via revision, and the preservation behavior for kind and visibility. It does not mention return values or error handling, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the most important operational detail (revision) and the preservation caveat. Every sentence earns its 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?

For a moderate-complexity update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call requirements and key pitfalls. It does not explicitly describe failure modes or return values, but the revision check implies conflict handling and the required parameters make the call contract clear enough.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for revision (concurrency guard), kind, and visibility (preserve explicitly), but id, title, and body are left to be inferred from the word 'note' and their names. This is partial compensation for six parameters.

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: 'Replace a note that you authored.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like write_memory (create) and read_memory (read), and the authorship constraint further scopes its purpose.

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 description provides context for when to use the tool: updating an existing note the agent authored. It also explains why the revision parameter matters ('to prevent overwriting concurrent changes'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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