Update Planner Note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add that this is a targeted field-level edit (a partial update of title/details/date/course), but it omits what happens to unspecified fields, whether changing course_id re-files the note, and what occurs on an invalid note_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the target, and the editable fields with zero filler or repetition.

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?

With annotations covering safety and the schema covering all parameters, this is adequate but thin for a mutation tool: it does not say whether omitted fields are preserved, whether the update is idempotent in practice, or how failures on an unknown note_id behave. No output schema exists, so return behavior is left entirely implicit.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including that note_id comes from list_planner_notes. The description only loosely maps its wording ('date' to todo_date, 'course' to course_id) and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (change/update) and resource (one of your Canvas planner notes) and enumerates the mutable fields (title, details, date, course). It is clear about scope ('one of your', singular), though it never names the sibling tools create_planner_note/delete_planner_note/list_planner_notes to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Change one of your Canvas planner notes' signals editing an existing note rather than creating or deleting one. There is no explicit when-to-use versus create_planner_note or delete_planner_note, and no statement of prerequisites such as needing a valid note_id first.

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