update_issue_note

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

The description discloses that the tool mutates remote GitLab state, requires specific permissions, and returns validation/conflict/permission/rate-limit errors rather than silently failing. This goes beyond the sparse openWorldHint annotation and gives agents realistic expectations of side effects and failure modes.

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?

Three sentences with clear flow: purpose, usage alternative, and key constraints. The conditional phrasing for project/group IDs is slightly verbose but acceptable. It is well-paced and not redundant.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, side effects, permissions, and parameter formatting. It does not detail param interdependencies, but that is not critical given the schema's 100% coverage and the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by instructing how to provide project_id/group_id (numeric ID or URL-encoded path) and reminding agents to follow schema documentation for required identifiers and pagination. This is helpful over the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Modify an existing issue thread note' — a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from create and discussion-only note tools, so an agent can select this tool without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (existing resource) versus alternatives ('choose the corresponding create tool for a new resource and a note tool for discussion-only text'). It also adds permission and error-handling context, making usage boundaries clear.

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