Update Note

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the update nature is known. The description adds valuable context: it requires at least one field to update (implying partial update), supports HTML/rich text for the description field, and returns a compact summary. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand call semantics.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds necessary information: prerequisites, ID resolution, HTML support, and return type. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 14 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, required parameters, the need for at least one update field, how to resolve dependent IDs, and the return shape. It does not explain every optional parameter, but the schema fully covers those. A small gap is that it doesn't explicitly state whether updates merge or replace, but 'at least one field to update' strongly implies partial update.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by advising to resolve note_type_id via list_note_types and updated_by via list_users, and by clarifying that description supports basic HTML/rich text, which is not entirely obvious from the schema description alone. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 one existing Recruit CRM note by note_id,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling create_note by specifying 'one existing' note, and the scope is clear.

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?

It explicitly states the required parameters (note_id, updated_by) and the condition 'at least one field to update,' which indicates when the tool is appropriate. It also directs users to list_note_types and list_users for resolving IDs, which is practical usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for creating notes.

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