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

Despite having an idempotentHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: replacing existing notes, immediate and permanent effect, independence from publish/discardChanges, non-visibility to participants, and rejection for public templates. These go beyond the annotation and are highly useful for the agent.

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 dense but each sentence adds value: action, replacement semantics, versioning behavior, audience, and a rejection condition. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently structured, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with only an idempotent annotation and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, behavior, constraints, and relevant context (e.g., relation to publish/discardChanges), leaving little ambiguity.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies; the description does not go beyond what the schema already states about notes and questionBankId.

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 tool sets plain-text notes for a question bank, replacing previous notes. It also distinguishes this operation from other questionBank tools by explaining that notes are metadata outside the DRAFT/publish split and intended for maintainers only, not shown to participants.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to set maintainer-only notes that bypass version control. It also gives an explicit exclusion (rejected for public templates) and references questionBank_templateList. However, it does not directly name alternative tools for similar operations (e.g., questionBank_rename), though it implies via 'like the title'.

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