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

The description reveals important behavioral details beyond the sparse annotations: the platform refuses edits on other authors' notes, and mentions are re-synced with specific side effects—first-time tags trigger notifications, dropped tags remove the mention, and already-tagged people are not re-notified. This is valuable non-obvious behavior that an agent could not infer from the schema alone.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and constraint, then uses the second sentence to explain the most complex behavior (mention re-syncing). It is dense but easily parseable.

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 4-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core decision points: who can edit, what happens with mentions, and what content replacement means. It lacks only minor details such as return/error behavior or explicit linkage between entity_type and note_id, but the schema covers the entity_type role. The description is nearly complete.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description compensates strongly. It clarifies that note_id must reference one of the caller's own notes, that content is a full rewrite, and it adds rich semantics to mention_employee_ids by explaining notification behavior and how it interacts with inline mentions. This goes well beyond the schema's brief parameter descriptions.

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 action and resource: "Rewrite one of YOUR OWN notes." It also distinguishes itself by clarifying that only the author can edit a note, which separates it from notes_create, notes_delete, and notes_get. This is clear and 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 gives clear when-to-use context: rewriting your own notes. It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use condition: editing a colleague's note is refused. However, it does not name alternative tools such as notes_create or notes_get, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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