update_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: partial update semantics, body replacement ('replaces the whole body'), notebook moving, and to-do conversion. It does not address permissions, error handling, or reversibility, but the provided behaviors are genuinely informative.

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 a compact docstring with a clear lead sentence followed by an ordered parameter list. Each line is purposeful and adds information without redundancy; it is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 six parameters, no annotations, but an output schema, the description thoroughly covers parameter meanings and the key partial-update behavior. It omits explicit error/precondition details, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description compensates excellently by defining each optional parameter's meaning and side effects: 'New title, if changing it,' 'replaces the whole body,' 'Move the note to this notebook id,' 'Convert to/from a to-do item,' and 'Mark a to-do complete/incomplete.' This adds crucial semantics beyond the minimal schema.

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 'Edit an existing note' and emphasizes 'Only the fields provided are changed,' which distinguishes it from create/delete/get operations. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or exclusion contexts, so it falls just short of a perfect clarity score.

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 usage (edit existing note by ID) and provides guidance on partial updates ('Only the fields provided are changed'), but it lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No sibling tool comparisons are mentioned, so it is minimally sufficient.

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