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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses field-level permissions, edit-history retention (up to 50 edits), notification side effects for new mentions, and that removed notes are immutable. It omits some update semantics, such as whether omitted fields remain unchanged or what specifically happens when the edit limit is exceeded.

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 description is three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then layers permission and lifecycle constraints without filler. Every sentence conveys actionable information.

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 an update tool with no annotations, six parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the important authorization, notification, and immutability behavior. It leaves a minor gap around partial-update semantics, since only note_id is required and the description does not explicitly say that omitted fields are preserved.

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%, but the description adds useful meaning for several parameters: it explains who may modify body/media_ids/mentions, who may pin or change audience, and that newly mentioned members are notified. It does not add anything about note_id, and only partially compensates for the undocumented body and pinned schema fields.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change a note.' That clearly distinguishes notes_update from notes_add, notes_remove, notes_get, and notes_list. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the mutation purpose 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?

It gives clear eligibility rules: only the writer may change body, media_ids, or mentions; only owner/office may pin or change audience; and a removed note cannot be changed. It lacks explicit routing guidance such as 'use notes_add to create' or 'use notes_remove to delete', but the context is sufficiently clear.

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