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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds partial-update semantics plus the concrete effect of is_archived (archiving the note) – behavior not visible in annotations. Gaps remain: it does not say whether archiving is reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to fields omitted versus set to null.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two behavioral facts an agent most needs. No filler; the telegraphic "is_archived true l'archive" is terse but still parseable.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the highest-risk semantics (partial update, archiving) but leaves three parameters undocumented and says nothing about the return value or failure modes. 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?

With schema coverage at 56%, the description compensates by explaining the update contract (only supplied fields change) and by giving semantics for is_archived, which the schema leaves undescribed. It does not clarify type, title or is_pinned, so the coverage gap is only partly closed.

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?

"Modifier une note existante" names a specific verb and resource, clearly separating it from the create_note sibling. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the mutation scope 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?

"seuls les champs fournis changent" implies PATCH-style partial updates, which guides how to call it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to dandori_create_note or other update tools, and no prerequisites or error conditions are stated.

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