update_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update' without revealing that content may be replaced or appended, that tags/aliases are replaced, or whether changes are reversible. The schema hints at these behaviors, but the description itself adds no value beyond a generic operation.

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, front-loaded sentence of eight words, perfectly concise with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core function 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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, append behavior, or when partial updates are allowed. The user must rely entirely on the schema to infer usage, which is insufficient for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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%, with each parameter described. The description's phrase 'content or metadata' loosely maps to content, title, tags, and aliases, but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'update' with a clear resource 'a note', and mentions content or metadata. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_note and delete_note by implying modification of an existing note. However, it does not explicitly state the scope (e.g., partial versus full update), which prevents a perfect score.

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 usage for modifying existing notes, which differentiates it from create_note and delete_note. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not formally stated.

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