Change an existing checklist item's nesting depth, matched by text (case-insensitive, whole-item match, not substring). 0 = top level, 1 = nested one level, etc. Fails with an error if no item matches — call get_note first if you're not sure of the exact wording.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note ID | |
| item | Yes | Text of the item to reindent (case-insensitive, must match a full item, not a fragment) | |
| indent | Yes | New nesting depth, 0 = top level |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the exact matching semantics (case-insensitive, whole-item, not substring), the error behavior on no match, and the meaning of indent values (0 = top level). Missing is whether the operation is reversible or has side effects on siblings, but for a simple mutation tool, this is largely sufficient, hence a 4.
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 three concise sentences, with the core action stated first, followed by precise matching rules and an important note about failure and fallback. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 required params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it changes, how matching works, and what happens when there's no match. It could mention potential side effects like renumbering, but that is not critically missing for correct invocation. Hence a 4.
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% and the schema already explains the item parameter (case-insensitive, full match) and indent (0 = top level). The description's added context about matching and error conditions does not introduce new semantic clarification for parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 for high coverage is appropriate.
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 verb ('Change'), the resource ('existing checklist item's nesting depth'), and the precise matching criteria (case-insensitive, whole-item, not substring). This is distinct from sibling tools like check_item or add_checklist_item, so an agent can immediately tell what it does and how it differs.
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 explains when to use it (to reindent an existing item), and provides a clear precondition: if unsure the exact wording, call get_note first because it fails when no match. This is direct guidance on correct invocation and a fallback action, exceeding basic use-case statements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: note CRUD, checklist operations, label management, changelog entries, settings, and task queries. Descriptions explicitly differentiate between append vs. update, list vs. get, check vs. uncheck, and add vs. remove, so there is no ambiguity.
All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_label, get_note, check_item, update_note), with consistent verb choices. Even 'get_my_tasks' and 'uncheck_item' fit the pattern, so the naming is predictable and uniform.
14 tools is well-scoped for a notes application with checklist, label, and changelog features. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
The tool set covers full CRUD for notes, plus checklist management (add, check, uncheck), label management (add/remove), changelog entries, settings retrieval, and task aggregation. Minor gaps like archive/unarchive and a dedicated label list are workable, so the surface is near-complete for the domain.