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. It usefully discloses that tags 'replaces all existing tags' and mentions a return confirmation, but it does not explicitly clarify whether omitted front/back fields are preserved or how invalid note_ids are handled. This leaves some ambiguity in behavior.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear summary line followed by Args and Returns sections. Each parameter is described succinctly with optionality markers, and no unnecessary words are present.

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 core workflow, parameter semantics, and the key tag-replacement side effect. Since an output schema exists, detailed return value documentation is not strictly necessary. It lacks error handling details, but for a straightforward update tool, this is acceptable.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter's purpose: note_id's source, optionality of front/back, and the replacing behavior of tags, adding valuable meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 'Edit an existing card's fields or tags' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_notes, delete_notes, and search_notes by focusing on updating existing notes.

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 clear context by specifying that note_id comes 'from search_notes results', implying a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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