update_note

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description need not re-state mutability. It does add some context by enumerating editable fields and using 'and/or' to suggest partial updates are allowed. Yet it does not disclose whether unspecified fields are preserved or cleared, nor any side effects or error conditions.

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 that immediately communicates the action, target, and affected fields. There is no redundant or filler content, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 several siblings and carries a destructiveHint, so context matters. The description covers the basic operation, but it omits how this update differs from save_note, what the response looks like, and whether it is a partial or wholesale replacement of fields. Given the absence of an output schema, the agent is left with some uncertainty about behavior.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the parameter meaning. It names four of the five properties (title, content, tags, project), which helps map the schema, but it does not explain the role of the required 'id' parameter or elaborate on how fields interact beyond 'and/or'. This is a partial but not complete compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'existing note', and the specific fields involved ('title, content, tags, and/or project'). It is unambiguous about the operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling save_note, which could also plausibly perform updates.

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 phrase 'existing note' implies this tool is for modifying notes that already exist, and the list of fields gives a sense of intent. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over save_note, get_notes, search_notes, or delete_note, leaving the decision mostly to inference.

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