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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint. The description's word 'replace' usefully clarifies that the entire note text is overwritten rather than merged, which aligns with destructiveness, but it says nothing about irreversibility or what happens to other note fields/metadata.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the mutation keyword; zero waste. The embedded HTTP path (PUT /notes/{id}) is marginally useful REST context rather than pure filler.

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 2-parameter destructive mutation with rich annotations but no output schema, the description omits what the call returns and whether any other note attributes are affected by the replace. Adequate to call, but not complete.

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 note_id and description are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, id-source, or length guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('replace the text of an existing note'), which clearly separates it from freshsales_create_note and read-only get/list siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the mutation is unambiguous.

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 'WRITE:' prefix and 'existing note' phrasing imply this is for notes that already exist (use create_note otherwise), but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives are given.

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