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 cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid note_id), or rate limits. The return statement mentions 'updated note data' but lacks detail on format or potential side effects.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to scan. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters, though the 'args' wrapper in the description adds minor redundancy with the schema.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter info but lacks behavioral details (e.g., mutation effects, error cases) and return value specifics. For a mutation tool with 1 parameter (though nested with 5 sub-parameters), this is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear list of parameters (note_id, title, body, parent_id, is_todo) with brief explanations (e.g., 'ID of note to update', 'New title (optional)'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., what happens if parent_id is invalid).

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing note in Joplin.' This specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('note'), and it's distinct from siblings like create_note, delete_note, and get_note. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from import_markdown or search_notes, which might also modify notes indirectly.

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), compare to create_note for new notes, or specify scenarios where update is appropriate over other operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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