update_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a non-obvious behavior: 'The note title is automatically re-extracted from the first H1 heading.' This adds value beyond the basic update action. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error behaviors, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a notable behavioral note, and a clear Args list. Every line earns its place, and the essential information is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, key behavioral nuance, and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It could benefit from addressing edge cases like invalid note_id or whether content replaces or merges, but overall it provides sufficient context for a simple update operation.

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?

The input schema has zero descriptions for its parameters, so the description compensates by providing explicit explanations: 'note_id: The unique identifier of the note to update' and 'content: New markdown content for the note.' This clarifies the meaning and role of each parameter effectively, though it could add more detail about content format or constraints.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing note's content,' which specifies the verb (update), resource (note), and scope (content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'existing note' implies this tool is for notes that already exist, suggesting a contrast with create_note. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The usage context is clear from the name and first sentence but not elaborated.

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