note_update_draft

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the burden and discloses two meaningful traits: the operation is an overwrite (上書き保存), and it preserves publication status. This gives the agent a clear safety-relevant behavioral picture, though it does not cover side effects on omitted optional tags or the response shape.

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 with no filler: the first names the operation and target, the second states the crucial invariant. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the publication-status invariant, but leaves ambiguity about optional tag handling and does not indicate what the tool returns. These gaps are modest because the schema is fully described and the use case is simple.

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 the input schema already documents id, title, body, and tags. The description reinforces that title and body are overwritten, but adds no new detail about how the optional tags parameter behaves when omitted.

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 specifies the exact verb and resource: overwrite-saving the title/body of an existing draft identified by ID, and adds a key boundary ('公開状態は変更しない'). This clearly distinguishes it from note_create_draft, note_get_draft, and note_publish_draft.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as working on an existing draft (既存の下書き) and explicitly states it will not change publication status, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and when to look elsewhere. However, it does not name the alternative sibling tools explicitly, so the routing guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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