Update a Ygdria note

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's job is to add depth. It does exactly that by disclosing optimistic-concurrency semantics: on conflict it returns the latest note and the write does not apply, with an explicit anti-pattern (never retry stale version). It omits whether unset fields are preserved or cleared, which matters given destructiveHint=false.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and fields, followed by the failure-mode rule. No wasted wording and the most surprising behavior is stated directly rather than buried.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the concurrency contract well but leaves gaps an agent would care about: whether passing a subset of fields replaces or merges the existing note, and what codeLanguage does. The versioning story is complete; the field-mutation story is not.

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 carry the load, and it partially does: 'current version from a read, resource, or prior write response' explains expectedVersion's semantics without naming it. It covers title/tags and calls the body 'content' (a naming mismatch), but says nothing about noteId or the unexplained codeLanguage parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update title, body, or tags') on a note, which is concrete enough to act on. It does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like update_tags, edit_content, or replace_content, which appear to touch the same fields, so an agent must guess which one applies.

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?

Gives clear operational context: use a version obtained from a read, resource, or prior write response, and on conflict re-read and never retry the stale version. This covers when and how to invoke under contention, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling tag/content tools.

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