notes_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing note' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. This leaves significant gaps 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?

The description is extremely concise at just 4 words, front-loaded with the core action. There's zero wasted language or redundancy. While it's arguably too brief for a mutation tool with complex parameters, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 2 parameters (including nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what can be updated, how to format updates, what happens on success/failure, or provide any context about the note system. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions no parameters at all, while the input schema shows 2 required parameters (noteId and properties) with nested properties. The description doesn't explain what noteId should be, what properties can be updated, or the meaning of hs_note_body, hs_timestamp, and hubspot_owner_id fields.

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 'Update an existing note' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (note), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like notes_create, notes_get, and notes_archive by specifying it's for existing notes. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated (e.g., body, timestamp, owner) which would make it more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a noteId), when to use notes_update vs notes_batch_update, or what happens if the note doesn't exist. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and input schema alone.

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