update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait—that it replaces the entire content—which signals potential destructiveness. However, it omits other context such as behavior when the note is missing, return value, or how frontmatter is handled; the schema partially covers frontmatter defaults, but the description itself adds little beyond the replacement fact.

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 consists of two short sentences that immediately state the action and the key behavior. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 provides the essential purpose and the destructive full-replacement behavior, but it lacks guidance on when to use this tool relative to several similar update tools, error conditions, or expected return values. The minimalism leaves some gaps, so it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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% for all four parameters, including defaults and explanations for updateModified and preserveFrontmatter. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('update') with a clear resource ('content of an existing note') and clarifies the core behavior ('replaces the entire content'). This distinctly separates it from sibling tools like append_to_note, prepend_to_note, and replace_in_note, which perform partial modifications.

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 phrase 'existing note' and 'replaces the entire content' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: full-content replacement rather than partial edits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the behavior is distinctive enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.

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