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 the tool updates a note and returns updated data, but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, whether updates are partial or full (optional params suggest partial), error handling (e.g., invalid note_id), or side effects (e.g., timestamp changes). The description covers basic intent but misses operational context essential for safe use.

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 and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. Minor improvements could include integrating parameter details more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors) and output details (only mentions 'dictionary containing the updated note data' without structure). For a mutation tool, this leaves gaps that could hinder effective use by an agent.

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 adds significant value by listing all parameters (note_id, title, body, parent_id, is_todo) with brief semantics (e.g., 'ID of note to update,' 'New title (optional)'), clarifying their roles beyond schema titles. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., if parent_id changes folder location) or constraints (e.g., format of note_id), leaving some gaps.

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.' It specifies the verb ('Update') and resource ('note'), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_note, delete_note, and get_note by focusing on modification rather than creation, deletion, or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-like operations (if any exist beyond these siblings).

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 an existing note_id), compare it to create_note for new notes or get_note for viewing, or specify scenarios where updating is appropriate (e.g., editing content vs. moving folders). Usage is implied by the action 'update,' but no explicit context or exclusions are given.

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