update_coach_note

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

The only annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is low. The description confirms mutation and lists which fields change, which adds some value, but it says nothing about partial-update semantics (are unset fields left untouched?), return behavior, or whether marking 'done/dropped' is reversible.

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?

A single compact sentence with the primary mutation front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it borders on under-specification for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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 mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a non-read-only annotation, the definition is thin. It omits partial-update behavior, permission/ownership requirements, and any indication of what the call returns or how errors surface.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does. It explains that text and review_on are editable and gives the meaningful status values 'done/dropped' (absent as an enum in the schema), but leaves 'id' and the date format of review_on unspecified.

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?

It names a specific verb+resource (update a coach note) and enumerates the mutable aspects (status done/dropped, text, review date). It is distinguishable from siblings like save_coach_note (create) and get_coach_notes (read), though it never names an alternative 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is referenced even though save_coach_note and get_coach_notes exist. Usage is only implicitly inferable from the operation description.

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