anki_update_note_fields

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

Annotations already mark this as mutating/destructive, but the description adds valuable context: fields are sent verbatim as HTML, replacement is wholesale not merged, and the silent failure when the note is open in Anki's Browse window. The warning about Anki falsely reporting success is especially important and beyond annotation data.

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?

Well-structured with bold warnings and short, information-dense paragraphs. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, HTML semantics, partial-edit guidance, and the silent-failure warning. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Combined with the output schema (present) and annotations, the description fully covers the tool's usage: destructive nature, field replacement semantics, prerequisite fetch step, and a critical failure mode. Sibling tools are referenced where relevant, making this complete for an agent.

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 already documents all three parameters; the description adds meaningful semantics for `fields` (verbatim HTML, wholesale replacement, omitted fields preserved), which is not evident from the schema alone. It does not further elaborate on `note_id` or `response_format`, but the existing schema coverage is sufficient.

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?

Opens with 'Overwrite fields of an existing note' – a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_note, find_notes, and get_notes_info. The scope is precise: updating, not creating or reading.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to fetch current values with anki_get_notes_info before partial edits, and outlines a recovery path for silent failures. However, it does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool (e.g., use add_note for new notes) or name a non-update alternative.

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