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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds only 'privacy-filtered project metadata' about the data source, and says nothing about what is created vs. replaced, permission needs, or effects on existing node state, so it contributes little beyond the structured hints.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 mutation tool with a nested object, five parameters, and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. The description never explains what a 'record context node' is, what the update does to existing state, or how it relates to the many sibling context/note tools.

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 100%, including nested details fields and the idempotencyKey retry semantics, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what is already documented, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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 verb (update) and a resource (hosted record context node), so the basic action is identifiable. However, 'record context node' is jargon that isn't disambiguated from siblings like update_context_note, context_write, or link_context_nodes, so an agent can't easily tell which of the many context tools applies here.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the large set of sibling context tools. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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