update_rom_note

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: only explicitly supplied fields are updated. However, it does not disclose what happens to omitted fields, whether explicit nulls clear values, or any error/validation behavior.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, but the wording 'only the explicit fields supported by RomM notes' is vague and somewhat redundant. It is concise but not as informative as it could be in the same space.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no parameter-level documentation, this description is too sparse. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing usage guidance and parameter semantics leave significant gaps for an agent deciding how and when to call 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 0%, and the description names none of the six parameters. The phrase 'only the explicit fields' adds generic partial-update semantics, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation by explaining rom_id, note_id, tags, title, content, or is_public.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('RomM notes'), which is enough to distinguish this tool from note creation/deletion/list siblings and from ROM metadata tools. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'existing note' or explain what 'explicit fields' means, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus create_rom_note, delete_rom_note, or update_rom_metadata. The verb 'Update' and required note_id imply the tool targets existing notes, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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