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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden well: it discloses that this mutates existing content, that only marks you made can be changed, and that the earlier version remains readable to anyone who inspects it. It also explains the optional note’s purpose. It still omits details like authentication requirements, failure behavior, and the precise response.

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 two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core action and the versioning behavior are front-loaded before the optional note detail.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts: ownership scope, mutation, retained history, and note rationale. It is nearly complete, though it could mention the return result or token/auth handling for full context.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds meaning for text and note, but does not clarify name, token, or object_id beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: changing the words of a mark you made, with examples like graffiti, a sign, or a notice. It clearly identifies an edit operation on an existing owned object, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as create_object, remove_object, or amend_letter.

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 phrase 'a mark you made' implies an ownership precondition and that this is for editing existing objects, while the note field implies optional rationale. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives for creating, deleting, or inspecting objects.

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