update_endnote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the update action and a constraint on endnote_id (must be >= 1) but does not mention side effects, permissions required, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), or return value. The description is minimal 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 front-loaded with the purpose and then clearly lists arguments in a structured 'Args' block. It consists of two concise sentences plus two argument descriptions, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context on when to use the tool (usage guidelines) and behavioral aspects (error conditions, prerequisites). It is adequate but incomplete for a tool among many siblings.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying endnote_id must be >= 1 and describes 'text' as 'new text content'. However, it does not elaborate on format, length limits, or validation rules, providing only marginal additional context.

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 explicitly states 'Update the text of an existing endnote,' clearly indicating the verb (update) and resource (endnote). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_endnote' and 'delete_endnote', and from 'update_footnote' by specifying the resource type.

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 implicitly suggests use when modifying an endnote's text but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'add_endnote' for creation). It lacks prerequisites, such as needing the endnote ID from 'get_endnotes', and offers no exclusions.

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