write_exercise_note

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the empty-string removal behavior, the 500-character ceiling, and sync/merge conflict resolution. The merge sentence is somewhat generic boilerplate ("settings and the plan") that doesn't clearly map to exercise notes, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose sentence is well front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing merge sentence is long, confusingly worded, and about "settings and the plan" rather than exercise notes, so it doesn't fully earn its place.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema and safety already covered by annotations, the description covers purpose, note semantics, removal behavior, and limits. It omits error/not-found behavior and any permission requirement, but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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% (exerciseId documented, note not). The description compensates by explaining what the note parameter represents, that an empty value deletes it, and the length cap, though the maxLength=500 is already in the schema. It adds genuine meaning for the undocumented parameter.

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+resource ("Set the standing note of an exercise") and clarifies what a standing note is ("shown every time it is done, e.g. seat 4, pin 7"), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling write_day_note. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 a useful "when-not" rule (an empty note removes it) and a concurrency caveat, but never states when to prefer this over siblings like write_day_note or what preconditions exist. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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