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

Beyond the annotations' generic mutation profile, it establishes that an existing individual note is revised and that this helps avoid conflicting duplicates. However, it does not clarify overwrite behavior, preservation of omitted fields, or whether an id-only call has any effect.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose, then provide a concrete use case, an id-acquisition step, and a selection preference. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 simple three-parameter update tool, the description and fully documented schema provide nearly everything needed for correct selection and invocation. The remaining gap is the relationship between the optional note and topic fields, including whether either may be updated independently and whether at least one must be supplied.

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%, and all three parameters already have clear meanings and constraints. The description's instruction to get the id from recall largely repeats the schema's recall-or-remember guidance, while the example adds context but little additional parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: changing one of the user's saved notes. It also distinguishes the tool from creating another memory by recommending it over saving a second, conflicting note.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger—when a fact or preference changes—plus a concrete example. It also supplies the workflow of obtaining the id from recall and explains when this tool is preferable to adding another note.

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