update_note

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

Without annotations, the description only states it updates fields. It omits behavioral details like idempotency, error handling (e.g., missing note ID), return value, or permissions. The mutation is implied but not elaborated.

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 single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is concise but could be slightly improved by including minimal usage context.

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 simple update tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic action and fields. However, it lacks details on preconditions (note existence), partial update behavior, and success/failure responses, making it incomplete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description mentions note_id, title, and body but adds no extra semantics (e.g., format, limits, behavior when omitted). It only ties parameters to the update action.

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 updates a note's title and/or body using the note ID. It specifies the action (update), resource (note), and which fields can be modified, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_note or delete_note_by_id.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), scenarios, or when to prefer this over create_note or search capabilities.

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