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

Annotations only include idempotentHint: true. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: permanent replacement, immediate effect, metadata outside DRAFT/publish split, invisibility to participants, and rejection for public templates. This goes well beyond the annotation and provides no contradiction. The idempotency is implied by 'replacing whatever was there before' with the same content.

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?

The description is a compact but information-dense paragraph. It front-loads the core action and effect, then adds essential context about metadata scope, visibility, and rejection. Every sentence contributes value; there is no redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, permanence, impact on drafts, audience, and failure condition. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to misinterpret. The presence of idempotentHint and full schema coverage further completes the picture.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra semantics: for 'notes' it reiterates 'Plain-text notes... Replaces any existing notes' (similar to schema) and gives an example ('e.g. sourcing/curation instructions'). For 'questionBankId' it adds nothing beyond the schema. As coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description meets but does not exceed 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 clearly states the action: 'Sets the plain-text notes of a question bank, replacing whatever was there before, immediately and permanently'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying notes as metadata, unlike rename (title) or updateItem. The verb 'sets' is specific and the resource 'question bank notes' is unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: notes are maintainer-only, never shown to participants, and unaffected by publish/discardChanges. It also gives a clear rejection condition ('Rejected for a public template id, see questionBank_templateList'), which guides when not to use the tool. No alternatives are named, but the boundary is precise.

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