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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it says the whole note is overwritten with plain text and that bold, links and lists are lost, plus that editors see the change immediately and in-app undo will not revert it. Those are concrete loss and reversibility facts an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the destructive consequence. Minor redundancy between "Replace the text" and "Overwrites the whole note" (and the line-break note repeating the schema), but nothing extraneous enough to hurt.

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?

No output schema, but all three parameters are fully documented in the schema and the description covers the destructive outcome, scope limits, who observes the change, and undo limits. Nothing an agent needs before invoking this mutation is missing.

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% — every parameter already has a description tying card_id to get_board and board_id to list_boards. The description's plain-text/line-break note largely restates what the text parameter's schema description already says, so it adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Replace the text of a note card") and immediately scopes it ("Only note cards"), which cleanly separates it from add_note and set_task_done. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the exclusion and the alternative in the same sentence: "Only note cards; to-do lists change with set_task_done." That is a when-not plus a routing target, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

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