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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds only the schema-discovery prerequisite, which is itself repeated in the custom_fields parameter description, and says nothing about partial-update behavior or what is lost when arrays are passed as [].

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler or restated title. Every sentence carries information an agent can act on.

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, rich annotations and full schema coverage, most of the burden is lifted off the description. Still, for a destructive mutation with six parameters and link-replacement semantics, the description does not touch on what changes are destructive or how linking behaves, leaving that entirely to the schema.

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% and each parameter documents its own semantics, including the "omit to leave unchanged, pass [] to remove all" rule and the exact-field-code warning. The description's only parameter-related sentence duplicates what the schema already states, so it adds no meaning beyond it.

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 ("Update an existing note") and scopes it to the CRM, so it is clearly distinct from create-note-tool and delete-note-tool by inference. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

"Use the crm-schema resource to discover available custom fields" is a genuine prerequisite, but it only covers custom_fields. Nothing says when to use this instead of attach-note-to-entities-tool or detach-note-from-entities-tool, which overlap with the people_ids/company_ids/opportunity_ids linking parameters.

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