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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write. The description's only behavioral claim, that body and contact_id are 'required by the underlying API,' merely restates the schema's required array rather than explaining partial-vs-full update semantics, what side effects occur, or what approval_id's single-use behavior implies.

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?

Two short sentences with the usage trigger front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's required array, but it is brief enough not to be wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema documents all parameters. What remains missing is mutation semantics for a 7-parameter write tool: whether unspecified fields are cleared, whether contact reassignment is allowed, and how approval_id is meant to be used. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters, and the baseline for that situation is 3. The description's note about body/contact_id being required adds rationale but no syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema's required list, and the optional parameters (approval_id, memory_kind, source_reference, is_favorited) go unmentioned.

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 frames the tool as 'When a note needs correcting or updating,' which gestures at purpose but never states the actual verb+resource behavior (that it modifies an existing note's fields). The name and title carry the real meaning, and there is no differentiation from siblings like notes.create or notes.delete beyond the word 'updating.'

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?

'When a note needs correcting or updating' is an implied trigger condition, so usage is loosely signaled. However, no alternatives are named (e.g., notes.create for new notes), no when-not guidance is given, and no prerequisites for a valid update are stated.

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