update_note

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

The description 'Patch' implies a partial update, but does not confirm that omitted fields remain unchanged. It fails to disclose permission requirements, error behavior for invalid note_id, or idempotency. With no annotations, the burden is unmet.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to provide necessary context without being overly verbose.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits response format, error handling, field constraints, and behavioral details, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the 6 parameters. Parameter names like 'title' and 'content' are somewhat self-explanatory, but without any elaboration, the agent lacks clarity on constraints or formats.

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 verb 'Patch' clearly indicates a partial update operation, and 'note' specifies the resource. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'update_task', lacking specificity about scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_note' (for new notes) or 'update_task'. Prerequisites such as note existence are not mentioned.

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