pipedrive_notes_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait (content_html is raw HTML with no CDATA wrapper), but says nothing about whether this is a full or partial update, what happens to pin flags that are omitted, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the format caveat immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 40% schema coverage, the definition is too thin. An agent lacks the information needed to know how partial updates behave, how the pin flags interact, or what the response will contain.

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 only 40%. The description adds real meaning for content_html, but that overlaps the schema's own detailed note, and the three pinned_to_*_flag booleans are never explained (defaults, effect of omission, whether true/false toggles or sets). note_id is likewise unaddressed, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Update a note') and enumerates the editable surfaces (content and pin flags), which lets an agent distinguish it from pipedrive_notes_create/get/delete by name. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus pipedrive_notes_create or pipedrive_note_comments_update, and no prerequisites (e.g. note must exist, required permissions) are given. The only guidance is an input-format caveat, which is not usage guidance.

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