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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that title/body/tags/files are replaced (not merged), that append adds a line, and that delete is a boolean flag rather than a separate tool. It does not disclose mutation semantics for omitted fields, whether status transitions are validated, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and id-scoped subject, followed by a parenthesized enumeration of operations. No filler or redundancy.

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 no explanation, and the description does add the missing enum values for status. However, for a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the required `project` argument and any permission/error behavior remain undocumented, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does well: it lists valid status values per entry kind (which the schema does not define as enums at all), and explains title, body, append, tags, files, and delete. The gap is the required `project` parameter, which is never mentioned.

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 ('Change') and resource ('an existing entry by id') and enumerates the mutation modes (status, title/body, append, tags/files, delete). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remember/recall, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Change an existing entry by id' suggests this is the tool for modifying existing entries rather than creating new ones. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over remember or on which alternate tool handles creation of new entries.

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