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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the list-item distinction and bulk support, but does not clarify update semantics (e.g., partial updates, unsafe flag behavior, consequences of omitting fields). It fails to explain the 'unsafe' parameter or the account parameter, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences: first states the core functionality, second gives a usage guideline for lists and mentions bulk support. Concise and front-loaded with the key purpose.

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 description provides the core use case but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., unsafe parameter, behavior when fields omitted, return values). The tool has 6 parameters with zero schema descriptionsaint, so the description only partially compensates. The list-item exclusion is helpful, but the bulk feature is only briefly mentioned without specifics.

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 has 0% parameter descriptions. The description explains that title and/or text can be updated)Skip because it mentions 'título e/ou texto' but doesn't mention unsafe or note_ids parameters explicitly (only implicitly via bulk). It does mention bulk via note_ids but doesn't explain how it affects behavior. account is unexplained. So it adds some meaning but not comprehensive.

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 states 'Atualiza título e/ou texto de uma nota' (Updates title and/or text of a note), clearly specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from list item tools by directing users to use list item tools for list editing, and mentions bulk support via note_ids. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings.

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 a clear exclusion for list items: 'Pra listas, edite os itens com os tools de list item' (For lists, edit items with list item tools). It also mentions bulk support via note_ids. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over other note update variants (e.g., when to use keep_set_note_color vs this), though that is implied by focusing on title/text.

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