Update a research note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses partial-update semantics ('Omitted fields are unchanged'), which is meaningful beyond the schema. However, it omits permission requirements, whether changes are destructive/reversible, and any response or side-effect details.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and affected fields, with no wasted wording. The partial-update rule is compactly stated.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential field list and partial-update behavior. It still leaves out permissions, error behavior, and what a successful update returns, so it is only minimally complete.

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 60%, so the description should add meaning beyond the schema. It lists the updatable fields and adds partial-update behavior, but does not explain the required id, tag format, or that sources replacement is destructive to prior links. It is adequate but not fully compensating for the uncovered parameters.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('a note') and enumerates the updatable fields: title, content, tags, linked sources. It clearly distinguishes update_note from read/list/add/remove sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name those 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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It implies mutation of an existing note but does not say when to choose update_note over update_source or other sibling tools.

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