노트 수정

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key non-obvious behavior: frontmatter keys are merged, not replaced, with preservation of other keys and key order. It also clarifies that mode controls body update strategy. Missing details like prerequisite note existence or permissions, but the provided context is substantial.

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 two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and scope, the second details behavioral nuances. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core update logic and merge behavior, which is the most important context. It relies on the schema for parameter-specific details and omits edge cases like error handling, but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use it correctly.

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?

While the schema describes all 11 parameters, the description adds a unifying semantic: property parameters merge into existing frontmatter, preserving unspecified keys and order. This explains the interaction between mode and content that the schema does not fully convey, enriching parameter understanding beyond individual descriptions.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('수정한다' = modifies) and resource ('기존 노트' = existing note), clearly distinguishing from create_note by emphasizing existing notes. It also specifies the two main targets: body and frontmatter.

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 makes it clear this is for updating existing notes, not creating them, and explains the mechanics (mode for body updates, property parameters for frontmatter merging). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like create_note or state when to avoid this tool.

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