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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the permission requirement (workspace:write), clarifies that despite destructiveHint=true nothing is hidden and the note remains in history (only the open-note count changes), and adds a prompt-injection warning that reader note content is untrusted. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint 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?

Front-loads the core action and its inverse in the first sentence, then layers side effects, security guidance, and permissions. Every sentence earns its place, though the untrusted-data warning is somewhat verbose for a tool description.

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 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (workspace:write), id sourcing (link_report), reversibility, side effects on limits, and safety constraints. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, so id, page, and resolved are already fully documented, including the resolved=false reopen semantics and the true default. The description restates the reopen behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 pair (resolve/reopen) on a specific resource (one note on a page) and immediately distinguishes itself from destructive siblings like delete_note by describing resolution as a state change, not a removal. An agent can tell exactly what this does 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('resolve a note only when the user asks or the point it raises has been dealt with') and routes the agent to link_report for obtaining ids. It also covers both directions of the operation, so there is no ambiguity about how to reopen.

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