dealdesk.patch_card_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the concurrency mechanism (updatedAt) and the unavailability of delete, but says nothing about permission requirements, what happens on a stale/expectedUpdatedAt mismatch, or the response shape for a mutation.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, zero filler, with the operation and the key prerequisite front-loaded.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the prerequisite and concurrency token but omits permission/error context and the result of the call. It is adequate against the rich schema but leaves behavioral gaps.

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 83%, so structured fields already document most parameters, including projectId and text. The description reinforces the source of noteId and updatedAt ('from get_card'), adding modest value over the schema but not compensating for the undocumented cardId field.

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 specific verb+resource ('Update an existing structured desk-card note'), which cleanly distinguishes it from add_card_note (creation) and the read-only get_card. It does not explicitly name its closest siblings (patch_company_note, patch_contact_note), but 'desk-card note' scopes the target adequately.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Prefer get_card first for noteId and updatedAt') and an explicit exclusion ('Delete is not available through MCP'). It stops short of naming add_card_note as the alternative for creating notes, but the 'existing' qualifier implies that routing.

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