update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that omitted fields remain unchanged, but does not say whether supplied values fully overwrite existing ones, how empty strings are handled, what happens to the note's other metadata, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the most important partial-update behavior is stated immediately in the second sentence.

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 update operation, the description covers the essential partial-update behavior and names the editable fields. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around required id usage, overwrite behavior, return value, and error conditions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names title, body, and tags as mutable parameters, which adds some meaning to the bare property names, but it does not explain the id parameter's role, tag list semantics, or edge-case behavior beyond 'omitted fields stay as they are'.

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 specific action ('Change') on a specific resource ('a note') and names the affected fields (title, body, tags). This clearly differentiates update_note from its siblings add_note, get_note, delete_note, and list_notes.

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 second sentence implies partial-update semantics: omitted fields are left unchanged. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions under which it should not be used.

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