dealdesk.patch_card_note

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a capability limit (no delete via MCP) and implies optimistic concurrency by steering to updatedAt, but does not explain on-conflict behavior, last-write-wins semantics when expectedUpdatedAt is omitted, permission requirements, or what a successful update returns for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the purpose and the get_card prerequisite front-loaded ahead of the capability caveat. Appropriately sized for the operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key workflow and delete boundary but leaves gaps: conflict/error behavior, return value (no output schema to fall back on), and any permission notes. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 high (83%), so the schema documents text, title, noteId, projectId and expectedUpdatedAt. The description mentions noteId/updatedAt sourcing but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected 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?

States a specific verb (Update) and resource (structured desk-card note), clearly distinguishing it from add_card_note (creation) and the sibling patch_company_note/patch_contact_note family by resource scope. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow ('Prefer get_card first for noteId and updatedAt') and an explicit capability boundary ('Delete is not available through MCP'). No exclusion/routing toward a specific alternative when the note doesn't exist, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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