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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's real contribution is the merge semantics: 'Only the parts you give change; a person's note is never replaced.' That is valuable non-obvious behavior. It falls short of disclosing whether labels merge additively versus replace, and what happens when clear is combined with other values.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and resource, the second front-loads the merge guarantee. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with a nested labels object and no output schema, the description covers the core merge behavior but leaves removal semantics (clear, remove_labels) and label merge-vs-replace unaddressed. An agent could still call it, but the deletion paths require inferring from the schema alone.

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 57%, so four of seven parameters (field, description, remove_labels, clear semantics) rely partly on the description. The description groups description/unit/labels as the updatable parts and flags non-replacement of a person's note, which adds real meaning. However remove_labels and clear are never explained in prose, and the interaction between labels-additive and remove_labels is left unstated.

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: save or remove a field's description, unit and labels in the dataset's schema. It reads clearly as schema annotation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling note_dataset or from get_annotations/post_annotation, but the 'field in the dataset's schema' scoping is enough for an agent to identify it.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'in the dataset's schema' and by the 'only the parts you give change' merge semantics, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-note_dataset guidance. The 'clear' removal path is mentioned in general terms only; the reader must map it to the parameter themselves.

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