update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral details: the 'overwrite' mode replaces entire content, 'append' adds to the end, and it refuses with a structured error if the target vault is not WRITE_VAULT. This goes beyond a simple 'updates a note' statement. However, it does not explain what happens if the note does not exist or other error scenarios, which prevents a perfect score.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It covers the key modes and a critical constraint without any fluff or redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The description covers the main operation and a key error condition. However, completeness is slightly reduced because it does not mention errors for non-existent notes or invalid mode values, which are relevant for a simple update tool. Still, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'mode' parameter with its allowed values and effects, which is very helpful. However, it does not elaborate on 'source' or 'content'—these are left to inference. 'Content' is self-explanatory, but 'source' could be ambiguous (path vs. ID), so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 starts with 'Update an existing note,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. The sibling list includes create_note, delete_note, move_note, etc., making this tool's purpose distinct as the update operation. The mention of modes further clarifies the behavior.

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 clearly implies this tool is for modifying existing notes, as opposed to creating or deleting them. It also explains the two allowed modes ('overwrite' and 'append'), giving the user context for when each is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives beyond the implicit distinction.

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