propose_note_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool is non-destructive (doesn't write) and describes the output (hashes and diff). However, it doesn't mention optimistic locking or error cases, which are partially covered by the 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?

Single sentence conveying all essential information. No filler words; every word adds value.

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 simple preview tool, the description covers the purpose, behavior, and return values. It could mention integration with 'apply_note_update' and prerequisites, but overall it is sufficient given the tool's complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail about parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions, which are already adequate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Prepare' and explicitly states the tool does not write, clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'apply_note_update'. It also mentions the return values (hashes, diff), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 implies usage for previewing changes before committing, contrasting with 'without writing'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough from the sibling context.

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