update_note

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the direct database manipulation ('direct SQLite write'), the prerequisite of quitting the app, automatic backup behavior, and the dry_run preview capability. This provides strong transparency for a mutation tool.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides the critical requirement, and the third adds safety and preview features.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, prerequisites, safety mechanisms, and a preview option. Since an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary. For a mutation tool with moderate complexity, this is complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'title/content/flags' (flags likely referring to pinned and bookmarked) and explicitly calls out dry_run. However, it does not detail all seven parameters or explain content_format or note_id semantics, leaving some gaps.

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 the tool edits a note's title, content, and flags via direct SQLite write, using the verb 'edit' and specifying the resource 'note'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_note or create_note.

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 critical usage context: the UpNote app must be quit (with an override option) and a backup is automatically taken. It also mentions the dry_run parameter for preview. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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