update_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'prevent decay' which implies ttl decreases over time, but does not disclose whether ttl and content can be set simultaneously, what happens if the note does not exist, or any side effects. The 'or' phrasing is ambiguous regarding exclusivity.

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, directly front-loaded with the core purpose and a usage hint. No wasted words; every phrase carries meaning.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and a key use case. However, it lacks details about parameter combinability, error behavior, and return values, leaving notable gaps in context.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context that ttl relates to decay, but does not clarify parameter interactions (e.g., whether ttl and content can both be provided). No significant value beyond the 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 clearly specifies the tool's action: 'Refresh a note's ttl to prevent decay, or update its content.' It names the resource (note) and the specific operations (ttl refresh and content update), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_note and remove_note.

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 explicit context for when to use the ttl refresh functionality: 'Use when a note is still valuable but its ttl is getting low.' However, it does not give equivalent guidance for the content update use case or mention when not to use this tool, falling short of a 5.

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