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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds almost no behavioral context: 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' is ambiguous and does not explain what the update actually changes, whether it is a merge or replace, or what 'privacy-filtered' means operationally. Without annotations, this would be near useless.

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 concise sentence and is not bloated. However, it is under-specified to the point of being cryptic; brevity here is a liability rather than an asset. A slightly longer description with concrete details would be more useful.

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?

The tool has a nested details object, optimistic concurrency via expectedVersion, and idempotency requirements, yet the description conveys none of this. With no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, an agent has no way to know how to construct a valid request or what to expect in return.

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 provides zero explanation of the seven parameters or the required fields (projectId, noteId, idempotencyKey, expectedVersion). The idempotencyKey and expectedVersion semantics are critical for correct invocation but are completely undocumented.

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 'Update hosted move context note' gives a verb and a resource, but 'hosted move context note' is an opaque term that is not defined anywhere. It does not distinguish the tool from sibling tools like update_context_note or convert_context_note, so an agent cannot tell what makes this specific to 'move' context.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives. The phrase 'using privacy-filtered project metadata' is a vague hint at best and does not state prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. There is no mention of when to choose move_context_note over update_context_note or context_write.

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