notes_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing note' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe permissions required, whether the update is destructive or reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified properties. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Update an existing note', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the core purpose without redundancy.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters, nested objects, and 0% schema coverage) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The conciseness comes at the cost of essential details needed for effective tool use.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the 2 parameters (noteId and properties) or their nested properties. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying that 'noteId' identifies the note and 'properties' contains update data. It doesn't explain the structure of 'properties' (e.g., that it includes hs_note_body, hs_timestamp, hubspot_owner_id) or their purposes, leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 'Update an existing note' clearly states the action (update) and resource (note), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'notes_batch_update' or 'notes_update' (if there were multiple note update tools), and it lacks specificity about what aspects of a note can be updated. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID), compare it to batch update tools like 'notes_batch_update', or specify contexts where it's appropriate. Without such information, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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