Update note

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds a behavioral requirement (at least one field must be provided) that is not in annotations. It does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or error behavior, so it adds only minimal context beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no fluff, immediately conveying purpose and a key usage requirement. It is well-structured and easily scannable.

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 6-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the core action and the at-least-one constraint, but omits the athlete parameter's role and any return/error information. This is adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps.

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 50%, covering date, athlete, and note_id. The description adds meaning to title, description, and is_hidden by listing them as updatable fields, but notably omits the athlete parameter, which has a rich schema description indicating coach-only targeting. This partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 a calendar note' clearly states the action (update) and resource (calendar note), distinguishing it from note creation or deletion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tp_set_workout_note or tp_create_note, though 'calendar note' provides some context.

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?

It provides a clear usage constraint: 'Provide at least one of: title, description, date, is_hidden.' This guides the agent on required inputs. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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