Update A Note Of The Project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds value by stating that only supplied fields are changed and that the modified object is returned on success, and the PATCH HTTP method implies partial update. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes the behavior, required parameters, and API endpoint. The listing of required parameters is slightly redundant with the schema but adds clarity. No unnecessary information.

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's simplicity (4 required params, no output schema, light annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose, partial update behavior, return value (modified object), and required parameters. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 required parameters. The description merely lists the required parameters without adding additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 a note of the project' and specifies it is for updating existing Bid Board records, with a focus on only modifying supplied fields. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create, retrieve, and delete notes, providing a specific verb-resource scope.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to update an existing Bid Board records' and lists required parameters, indicating when to use the tool. While it does not provide explicit exclusion criteria or alternative tool references, the context and sibling tool names allow the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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