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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further by disclosing the exact destruction model: the title and/or the whole body are REPLACED, so partial text loses existing content. It also prescribes a dry_run-first, member-confirmation sequence, which is the key safety behavior an agent needs to reproduce.

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 tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: capability, replace semantics plus prerequisite, alternatives, and the confirmation protocol. The critical warning (REPLACES the whole body) is capitalized and front-loaded rather than buried.

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 destructive mutation with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what gets destroyed, how to preview safely, which tool to use instead for adjacent intents, and where the note id comes from. No meaningful gap remains.

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% and the schema already labels body/title as full replacements, so most parameter meaning is pre-supplied. The description still adds operational semantics the schema does not: read the note first and send the complete new text, and call with dry_run true before the real write. The id/person/project parameters get no extra treatment, keeping it below a 5.

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 ('rewrite, edit, rename or correct a note') and immediately clarifies the replace semantics. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (connections_notes_append_to_note, connections_note_save, connections_todo_update), so an agent can route without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('member asks to rewrite, edit, rename or correct a note'), when-not (adding to the end → append tool; creating → save; to-dos → todo_update), plus a required prerequisite workflow of reading with connections_note_get and confirming before the write.

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