ruddur_update_waypoint_note

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scope requirement, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe side effects, return behavior, or other operational details, so the disclosure remains minimal.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then states the required scope. This is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The annotations and schema provide decent coverage: the operation is idempotent, non-destructive, and the body parameter semantics are explained. However, the tool description itself offers minimal context about what a Waypoint note is, what fields are updatable, or what the response looks like. Given the flexibility of the body (anyOf object/array/string), more guidance would be helpful, but the existing schema partially compensates.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The body parameter description in the schema is rich, explaining how to pass Ruddur fields directly and when to use assessmentConfig. The tool description itself contributes no parameter semantics beyond the scope requirement, so no bonus is warranted.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'Waypoint note', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete/list waypoint notes, though it does not explicitly contrast with ruddur_update_waypoint, which is a different resource.

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 only mentions the required scope ('content.manage'), not when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where updating a waypoint note is appropriate, leaving the agent without usage context.

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