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

The description aligns with annotations: 'Update' implies mutation consistent with readOnlyHint=falseemento, and no contradiction exists. It adds the behavioral detail 'privacy-filtered project metadata', but doesn't disclose idempotency mechanics, expectedVersion semantics, or effects beyond the annotation basics.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action (update) and object (hosted archive context note) efficiently.

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 tool with 7 parameters, 4 required, a nested object, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It gives no clue about expectedVersion semantics, idempotency key usage, or what the details object contains, making correct invocation purely dependent on the raw schema.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description adds none of the parameter meanings. It fails to explain projectId, noteId, idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, or the details object, leaving all parameters to the schema alone.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Update hosted archive context note'. The modifier 'hosted archive' distinguishes it from generic updates like update_context_note or context_write, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_context_note or move_context_note. The phrase 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' hints at a use case but doesn't state conditions or exclusions.

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