note_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core mutation but does not mention required authentication, overwrite behavior, error cases for missing or invalid ids, or whether the update is reversible. This leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the operation, target, and identifier efficiently.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain return values, error outcomes, authentication prerequisites, or when to prefer this tool over a sibling such as note_create or note_get.

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 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'id' selects the note and 'body' supplies the new content, but it says nothing about the required 'token' parameter, leaving one of three parameters unexplained.

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: 'Update a note's body by id.' It clearly identifies the operation, the target entity, and the selection method, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like note_create, note_get, and note_delete.

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 'Update a note's body by id' gives clear context: use this tool when an existing note's body needs to be changed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation and target are clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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