Update an existing note on a job application to reflect changes in status, feedback, or next steps.
Update an existing note on a job application.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The job ID the note belongs to | |
| content | Yes | The updated note content | |
| note_id | Yes | The note ID to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing note' without describing permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens if the note doesn't exist, or the return format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the action and resource.
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 complexity (a simple update operation with 3 required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral details like error handling or permission requirements that would make it complete for a mutation tool without annotations.
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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema (job_id, note_id, content). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb (Update) and resource (an existing note on a job application), which clearly identifies the operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like add_job_note or delete_job_note beyond the 'existing' qualifier.
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 such as add_job_note or delete_job_note. The description offers no context about prerequisites (e.g., the note must already exist) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.