Update note

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

Annotations already declare mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotency, non-destructiveness, and open-world access, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of required permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared, or what happens if body is null (which the schema explicitly allows as a default).

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?

Three words, so nothing is wasted, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded scope, target, or constraint for the agent to anchor on.

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 mutation tool with 5 optional parameters, no required-field guidance, no output schema, and an unexplained free-form 'data' object, the definition leaves out everything an agent needs to construct a valid call, particularly the note_id + project_id/issue_iid targeting requirement.

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 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and zero required parameters, the description must explain what note_id, project_id, issue_iid, body, and the opaque 'data' object mean and how they combine to locate a note; it says nothing about any of them.

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 is a bare restatement of the name and title ('Update a note'), conveying only that a note is modified, with no mention of which resource identifiers are involved or how it differs from gitlab_create_note, gitlab_delete_note, or gitlab_get_note.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is given. An agent must infer that this edits an existing note rather than creating one, and gets no hint about prerequisites such as needing an existing note_id or the owning project/issue.

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