Correct a context note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key destructive trait: `body` replaces the whole note rather than patching it. However, it says nothing about what happens to unspecified fields (title/kind), permissions, or reversibility of an overwrite.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the overwrite warning; nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It covers the central replacement semantic and the when-to-use case, but omits partial-update behavior for optional fields and any success/failure signal.

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 40%, with title, kind, and context_id undocumented. The description only restates the replacement semantics of `body`, which the schema already states verbatim ('Replaces the body outright'), so it adds little beyond structured data and does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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States a specific verb and resource: rewriting a note that is wrong or out of date, with the body as the replacement payload. It implicitly separates itself from add_context ('correct rather than add a second note'), but never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition (note is wrong or out of date) and an exclusion (don't add a second, disagreeing note). It does not name add_context or delete_context as the alternatives, so the guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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