Update or clear a memo for a specific calendar date by providing the date in YYYY-MM-DD format and the memo text; use an empty string to remove the memo.
Updates a calendar date memo for the specified date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | Yes | Target date in YYYY-MM-DD format. | |
| memo | Yes | Memo content for the date. Pass an empty or whitespace-only string to clear the memo. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.43Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is conveyed structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never states that an existing memo is overwritten, that there is no undo, or that clearing is possible. The clearing behavior is buried in the memo parameter schema rather than surfaced here.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool. There is no wasted wording, though there is also no structure beyond the one clause.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, a destructive overwrite operation arguably warrants at least a note that the previous memo is replaced, which is missing.
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 both parameters (date format YYYY-MM-DD and memo content including the empty-string clearing convention) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ("Updates a calendar date memo") and scopes it to "the specified date," which is enough to distinguish it from the read-only sibling get-calendar-date-memo by verb contrast alone. It stops short of naming that sibling or describing what a memo is, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the get-calendar-date-memo counterpart, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the write path for memo content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.