Edit a note (author or admin)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and does so well: it labels the operation as a WRITE, states that nothing is executed without confirm: true, notes that a request preview is returned instead, and warns there is no server-side dry run. It loses a point because the confirm/preview behavior is partly duplicated in the confirm parameter's own schema description.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the write-safety warning follows immediately after the identity of the operation. The stacked parentheticals make it slightly dense to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 a nested request body, minimal annotations (no destructiveHint) and no output schema, the definition covers the safety gate well but leaves the editable payload undocumented. An agent knows how to arm the call but not what a valid body looks like beyond the raw JSON schema.

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 50%, and the undocumented half is the important part: the nested body object with its body/date sub-fields has no descriptions in either schema or description, so an agent learns nothing about what can actually be edited, length or date-format constraints from the prose. The description only restates the confirm gate, which the schema already documents.

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 ("Edit a note") and adds an authorization qualifier ("author or admin") plus the underlying endpoint PATCH /v1/notes/{id}. It is clearly distinct from notes_create, notes_delete and notes_list by resource and verb, though it 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 a real precondition (caller must be the note author or an admin), which helps an agent decide whether it can use the tool at all. It does not say when to prefer this over alternatives such as notes_create or notes_delete, nor what happens on partial edits, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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