update_note

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not clarify what happens to existing fields when only some are updated, or any side effects beyond the annotations.

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 short (one sentence, three words) but omits important details like which fields can be updated. Concise should not come at the cost of completeness; a more informative one-sentence description would be better.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not mention that 'id' is required, that other fields are optional, or what the return value is (e.g., the updated note).

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline score is 3 because schema already documents each 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 'Update note metadata' clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'note', distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_note, delete_note, and get_notes. However, 'metadata' is slightly misleading because the schema includes 'content' which is the note body, not just metadata.

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 such as add_note (create new note) or search_notes. It does not mention any prerequisites or context for updating a note.

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