Update A Note Of The Project

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds that only supplied fields are changed (partial update) and returns the modified object on success. This adds value beyond annotations, but does not address permissions, rate limits, or other side effects.

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 moderately concise with two main sentences plus additional API endpoint details. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the inclusion of endpoint and version info adds clutter without clear benefit for an AI agent. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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 tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and required fields. However, it does not explain the format of the 'value' parameter or the nature of Estimating records, leaving some ambiguity. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description restates required parameters and mentions partial update behavior, but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema definitions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool updates a note for a project, specifically Estimating records, and returns the modified object. It distinguishes the resource and action well, but does not differentiate from its sibling 'update_a_note_of_the_project_company_v2_0'.

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 implies usage for updating existing Estimating records, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. It lists required parameters, offering some guidance, but lacks exclusions or context for selecting this over other update tools.

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