icu_update_athlete_notes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so the description only needs to add value — and it does: it discloses that the entire text is overwritten, that there is no append mode, and that clearing is possible via an empty string. The read-before-write workflow is a behavioral fact not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the imperative verb and the key distinction, followed by a usage sentence and a routing sentence. Every clause carries information — overwrite semantics, read-first pattern, and sibling disambiguation — with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope, overwrite behavior, prerequisites, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 description goes beyond by explaining how to construct the 'notes' value (read current text first, send combined text) and reinforcing the destructive-replace semantics and clear-via-empty-string behavior. It stops short of adding format/limit details beyond Markdown, so 4 rather than 5.

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 precise verb+resource (REPLACE the athlete's own free-text notes) and immediately scopes it against confusable siblings: 'not an activity comment or a calendar note.' An agent can distinguish it from icu_add_activity_message and icu_create_event without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('standing context about the athlete' with example utterances), an operationally important prerequisite (read existing notes with icu_get_athlete_profile and concatenate), and named alternatives for the other two note-like cases. Nothing is left to inference.

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