zk_update_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't describe what happens with partial updates, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The parameter list is formatted for readability. While concise, the purpose statement could be slightly more specific about what 'update' entails beyond changing fields.

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 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks crucial context about behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and usage guidelines relative to sibling tools.

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?

The description lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations, adding value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'note_id' is required and other parameters are optional, and provides format hints (e.g., 'comma-separated list' for tags). However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints, valid values, or interactions between parameters.

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') and resource ('an existing note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from creation tools like 'zk_create_note' by specifying it updates existing notes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools like 'zk_delete_note' or 'zk_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the note ID from a previous operation), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new notes), or how it differs from similar tools like 'zk_get_note' or 'zk_delete_note'.

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