update_note

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., what happens if the note doesn't exist, any side effects). It merely echoes the tool name without enriching transparency beyond structured data.

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 no redundant words. Every word contributes to meaning. It is efficiently structured for an AI to quickly grasp.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits what fields can be updated, any constraints, and expected outcomes. It leaves significant gaps for an AI to correctly invoke the tool.

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 only 40% (only 'id' and 'note_date' documented). The description does not explain the purpose or constraints of the other parameters (text, subject, note_type), leaving them ambiguous. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 an existing note by Note ID, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note, get_note, and delete_note.

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 when an existing note needs modification but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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