update-note

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: content must be HTML without newlines, the current body is snapshotted to disk before overwrite, and the operation fails atomically ('leaves the note untouched') on ambiguity. This exceeds expected transparency.

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 information-dense with no fluff, but the final sentence about eliminating spurious errors could be seen as slightly redundant given the earlier failure explanation. Still, it earns its place by providing reasoning. Overall well-organized with purpose first, then constraints, then usage tip.

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, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, input constraints (HTML, no newlines), side effects (snapshot), failure modes and conditions, and scope resolution. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. This is a fully specified description.

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 description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: 'title' is exact title match, 'content' is HTML without newlines, and 'folder' is optional scope with clear default behavior (whole Notes app vs a specific folder) and concrete rationale for passing it.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Replace the body of an existing Apple Note matched by exact title.' This distinguishes it from siblings like append-note (append) and create-note (create). The exact-title matching criterion adds specificity.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool and how to avoid errors: 'Pass folder whenever you know which folder the target note lives in.' It also explains failure conditions ('Fails if zero or multiple notes share the title') and the resolved scope behavior, which serves as when-not-to-use guidance.

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