update_note

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

The description explicitly discloses the critical behavioral trait: 'Deletes the old note and creates a new one', which is essential because a user might assume in-place modification. This transparency is high. No annotations are present to conflict.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the main action and then adding the important behavioral detail. Every part is informative, with no redundancy or extraneous text.

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 straightforward nature (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and behavioral change. It lacks mention of error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), but is otherwise sufficient for usage.

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 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that the first line of markdown becomes the title (with or without #), which is not in the schema. This extends understanding beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 'Update an existing note in Apple Notes', specifying the verb (update), resource (note), and system (Apple Notes). It distinguishes from siblings like create_note and delete_note by describing that this tool deletes the old note and creates a new one, making it a unique replacement operation.

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 when to use the tool (to update content while preserving folder) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Sibling tools are provided in context but not referenced in the description.

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