update-note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: partial updates (patches only fields passed), at least one required field, GM-only execution, and strict scene+note-id resolution. It does not mention error handling or response format, but the disclosed traits are sufficient for safe invocation.

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 two sentences, packed with information. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and key capabilities. It is efficient, but the first sentence is slightly long. Overall, it earns its place without 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?

Given the 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides substantial context: the patch behavior, required fields, scene/note resolution, and GM-only restriction. It lacks details on return values or error conditions, but these are partially mitigated by the schema's parameter descriptions.

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%, baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by grouping actions (nudge, relabel, resize, etc.) and explaining the 'global' field's purpose (fog occlusion, not permission control). This helps an agent understand parameter intent better than the schema alone.

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 it updates an existing map-note pin by id and lists all modifiable attributes (position, label, icon, etc.). It distinguishes from create/delete siblings by specifying 'Nudge ONE existing map-note pin' and refers to the 'legend→pins review loop', making its purpose highly specific and actionable.

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 provides clear context (GM-only, part of review loop, strict resolution) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives. However, the context strongly implies it is for modifying existing notes, and sibling tool names like create-scene-notes and delete-note cover the other cases.

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