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

Annotations already declare destructive/not-read-only/idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the edit is undoable within the user's Working stretch, and it returns a Fit report whose contents are enumerated. It does not say whether permissions or a settled layout are prerequisites, but the mutation and recovery profile is well covered.

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?

The action is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the bulk of the text is a dense, jargon-heavy enumeration of the Fit report that takes four long sentences to say what could be said in one or two. Given there is no output schema the return detail earns some place, but the settling/oneColumn explanation is verbose relative to its decision value.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full return-value burden and does so thoroughly, including the settling-tile caveat and the omitted oneColumn field. Combined with the undo note and annotation coverage of the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the two undocumented parameters remain the weak point.

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; it partially does by implying `note` is the identifier ("keeps its id") and `text` is the new body, and by pointing at add_note's formatted-text convention for the text parameter. It never states the expected identifier format for `note` (id vs. name) or how text is encoded, leaving a real gap at zero schema coverage.

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?

"Rewrite a Note's text" names a specific verb and resource, and the reference to add_note's formatted text plus "keeps its id and placement" separates it from add_note and remove_note without the agent opening a schema. It is immediately clear this mutates existing note content rather than creating or deleting one.

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 states the scope of the operation (text only, id and placement preserved) and routes the agent to the sibling `arrange` for placement, which is real alternative-routing guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions, e.g. when to prefer remove_note + add_note or whether an existing note must be found first.

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