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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: the author-only permission rule, an audit trail, and the dry-run-default behavior. It does not explain what happens to the prior note text or whether history is retained, which is the main residual gap for a destructive edit.

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 terse clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two facts an agent most needs before calling. No filler and nothing buried.

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 covers auth, audit, and dry-run for this mutation. The missing pieces are note_id provenance and whether the overwritten text is recoverable, which matter for a destructive rewrite.

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 only 50%: entry and dry_run are documented inline, while text and note_id have no descriptions anywhere. The description reinforces the dry-run default but does not explain note_id's format or where to obtain it (e.g., list_entry_notes), so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Rewrite ... internal notes on an entry") and scopes it with "one of your own," which separates it from add_entry_note, delete_entry_note, and list_entry_notes without ambiguity. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

"only its author may" gives a hard precondition and "Dry run by default" tells the agent the safe calling pattern. It never states when to pick this over add_entry_note or delete_entry_note, but the rewrite semantics imply the context well enough.

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