update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value: partial-patch semantics ('Only the arguments you pass are changed'), the `updated` bump, and a validation constraint (at least one resolvable [[wiki-link]] must remain). However, it omits auth/permission needs, what happens on a nonexistent file, and the effect of auto_index/retracted, leaving meaningful gaps for a 14-param mutation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint; each sentence conveys distinct information about mutation scope, body handling, and validation. No filler.

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 14-parameter, unannotated mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves most parameters and failure modes undocumented, even though the presence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke confidently across the full parameter set.

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 for 14 undocumented parameters. It only clarifies `content` (replaces body) and `append` (appends instead), plus a vague reference to 'frontmatter fields'; the remaining ~11 params (moc, tags, type, title, status, aliases, auto_index, supersedes, etc.) get no semantic help from either source.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Patch an existing note in place') and clarifies that it touches frontmatter fields and/or body while bumping `updated`. This makes the patch-vs-full-write distinction against write_note inferable, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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 explains mechanics but never states when to choose update_note over write_note or other siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g. the note must already exist). No when/when-not guidance is present.

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