dex_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a note, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether updates are reversible), error handling, or response format. The mention of 'meeting_type_id is resolved automatically' adds some context, but overall transparency is insufficient 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 front-loaded with the core action ('Update a note by ID') and efficiently lists modifiable fields in a single sentence, followed by a clarifying note about meeting_type_id. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately concise 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action and parameters but misses behavioral details like permissions, error cases, and return values. It's adequate for basic use but lacks depth for full contextual understanding.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'note' is an object containing modifiable fields like note text, event_time, meeting_type (with enum values listed), associated contacts, and custom_emoji, clarifying the structure and purpose of nested parameters. However, it doesn't detail the format for 'event_time' or 'contact_id', leaving minor 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 action ('Update a note by ID') and specifies the modifiable fields (note text, event_time, meeting_type, etc.), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dex_create_note' and 'dex_delete_note' by focusing on updates, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'dex_update_contact' or other update tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'dex_create_note' for new notes or 'dex_update_contact' for contact updates, leaving usage context unclear.

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