update-sticky-note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified properties, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation and gets straight to the point.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The comprehensive schema helps with inputs, but the overall context for using this tool remains incomplete.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely through the schema, with no value added by the description.

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 action ('Update') and target resource ('a sticky note widget in a mural'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling operations like 'create-sticky-notes' or 'delete-widget' beyond the obvious verb difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-sticky-notes' or 'delete-widget'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing widget), error conditions, or appropriate contexts for updating versus creating new sticky notes.

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