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, but it only restates that the action is an update and that the note already exists. It does not mention partial vs. full update semantics, handling of missing ids, permissions, or response behavior.

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 short and has no padding, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. A single four-word sentence is not enough substance for a tool with three required parameters and a nested object.

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?

The tool has three required parameters, a nested data object, no output schema, and no annotations; a one-sentence description is far from sufficient for reliable invocation. The description does not hint at the shape of 'data' or how 'campaignId' relates to the note.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the three required parameters. The nested 'data' object is completely opaque, and the roles of 'id' and 'campaignId' are not explained, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid payload.

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 names a clear operation ('Update') and resource ('existing note'), so an agent can distinguish it from create_note, delete_note, get_note, and list_notes. However, it does not specify which fields can be updated, so it is only minimally precise.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an already-created note, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus create_note, whether the note should be fetched first, or what constraints apply. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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