Modify an existing note by updating only the fields you provide; passing tags replaces all current tags. Use it to correct titles, edit bodies, or retag notes in persistent storage.
Change a note. Only the fields you pass are updated; passing tags replaces all tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| tags | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the crucial nuance that tags are wholesale replaced rather than merged, which is effectively a data-loss behavior the annotations do not convey. It stops short of stating failure behavior for a bad note_id or whether fields can be cleared.
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 tight sentences, no filler, and the most surprising constraint (tag replacement) is placed where it will be read before invocation.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the mutation model is covered. Missing is what happens when note_id doesn't resolve, and how the anyOf-null defaults interact with intent to clear a field — an agent could easily mis-call this.
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 carries the burden. It does explain the omit-means-unchanged rule and the tags replacement rule, but says nothing about title vs body, the required note_id, or whether passing null clears a field versus skipping it — a real ambiguity given every optional param defaults to null.
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?
"Change a note" gives a clear verb+resource and the object is unambiguous given siblings add_note/get_note/delete_note. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the other note tools, but the mutation semantics set it apart well enough.
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 establishes partial-update semantics ("Only the fields you pass are updated"), which tells the agent how to invoke it, but never says when to prefer it over siblings or what prerequisites exist (e.g. note must already exist). Usage is implied rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.