Edit notes

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the preview/confirm safety flow and the crucial fact that notes are backed up before the write. It also explains that only listed fields change and that an empty string clears a field except the first one, which is behavior no annotation or schema field conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then the two-step flow, then a compact inline example. Every element earns its place, though the mid-sentence line break inside 'before/after preview' and the loose trailing quote make the formatting slightly ragged.

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 destructive bulk mutation this covers what matters: confirmation flow, backup, partial-field update semantics and clearing rules. Residual gaps are allow_html's effect on field content and what happens to note_ids that do not exist; return values need not be described since an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 0% and the updates array is an untyped bag of properties, so the description carries the load — it supplies a concrete example decomposing note_id, fields, add_tags and remove_tags, plus the empty-string clearing rule. The confirm_token role is inferable from the flow, but allow_html is never mentioned and the per-item structure is shown only by example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Edit existing notes' fields and/or tags), which cleanly separates it from the sibling writers anki_add_notes, anki_delete_notes and anki_move_notes. The scope of what can change (fields and tags) is explicit in the first sentence.

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 two-step protocol is spelled out precisely: call without confirm_token to get a preview plus token, then call again with the same arguments plus the token to apply. That is strong procedural guidance for the risky part of the call, though it never routes the agent to alternatives such as anki_add_notes for new notes or anki_find_notes for locating notes.

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