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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a mandatory approval gate and the fact that failed writes are never auto-retried. It stops short of saying what a failed or partial edit leaves behind, which is the remaining gap for a destructive write.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the approval constraint. No filler, though the sentence fragment style leaves some terms implicit.

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, non-idempotent mutation with nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers the approval and retry semantics but omits whether the edit replaces or merges note content and what comes back. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 only 33%, so the description carries extra burden. It correctly explains the gating role of `confirmed` (approval before change or credit use), but says nothing about the `body` payload, the note content being replaced, despite that being the core nested input.

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 ("Edit prospect note"), which clearly separates it from the delete and get siblings on the same note path. It does not explicitly name prospect_note_add as the create-side alternative, but the mutating scope is 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?

Gives a prerequisite (user approval plus confirmed=true) rather than a when-to-use rule. An agent can infer this is for modifying an existing note and not for creating one, but nothing explicitly routes to dealmachine_prospect_note_add or dealmachine_delete_prospects_id_notes_note_id.

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