Update Note

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

The description adds the 'existing' constraint and clarifies that the operation is a content replacement, which is valuable beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose that prior content is permanently overwritten, nor does it mention permissions or error behavior. The annotations already indicate a write operation, so the added value is modest.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple update operation, the description, combined with annotations and output schema, is sufficiently complete. It covers the essential action but could briefly mention note_key as the identifier or note as the replacement content. Overall, adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 hints that 'note' is the content and 'note_key' identifies the existing note, but it does not explicitly define the parameters or their roles. The names are self-explanatory, so the description provides marginal additional meaning.

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 action ('Replace'), the resource ('an existing Zotero note'), and the specific scope ('content'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_note (creates) and delete_note (removes). It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you want to overwrite the content of an existing note. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives, such as update_annotation for annotations or add_note for new notes.

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