lipi_update_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond the basic operation by disclosing the optimistic-locking requirement and the 409 update_conflict behavior, including guidance to re-read and retry. It could add more about success response or permissions, but the key behavioral risks are covered.

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 three concise sentences: it states the action, defines the required header format, and explains the failure mode and retry strategy. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: the precondition, value format, conflict response, and suggested recovery action. It does not enumerate every possible error, but those are not essential for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful param context by providing an RFC3339Nano example, allowing an ETag as an alternative, and tying ifMatch to the 'last read' state. This clarifies and extends the ifMatch property description in the 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 states a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('a note's content'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lipi_rename_note or lipi_delete_note. The wording is unambiguous about the operation being performed.

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 gives an explicit workflow: read the note first to obtain ifMatch, then update, and on 409 re-read and retry. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives for creation or read, but the precondition and conflict handling make the intended usage context clear.

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