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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by warning that 'existing content and assignments can be replaced'. It also adds non-obvious context beyond annotations: private=true encrypts the note, neither private value creates or removes a public share link, and a private account forces every note to 'Only me'. It does not explain clear_resource or content_blocks behavior.

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 compact sentences with the core operation front-loaded. The closing clause 'the private parameter describes what each value means' is meta-filler rather than substance, a minor waste.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation this covers the risky visibility semantics well and an output schema exists to carry return values. But with 90% of parameters undocumented in the schema, omitting any explanation of clear_resource and content_blocks leaves a real gap for an agent assembling a call.

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 only 10%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it maps title, content, visibility, 'tags and topics' (subject_ids/subject_names) and 'resource assignment' (resource_id/resource_name) to intent. However, clear_resource and content_blocks are never mentioned, and the names-to-IDs duality of subjects/resources is left unstated.

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 ('Edits an existing Linko note ... by note_id') and enumerates the editable fields: title, content, visibility, tags/topics, resource assignment. It implicitly distinguishes itself from create_note/draft_note by requiring an existing note_id, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 description gives one clear conditional - visibility changes are 'for when the user asks to change who can see the note' - plus the fact that existing content/assignments can be replaced. It offers no guidance on when to use edit_note versus create_note, draft_note, or linko_save_note, all of which appear in the sibling list.

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