update_note

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the action 'update fields and/or tags' without clarifying whether the update is a full replacement or a merge, what happens to existing values, whether the operation is reversible, or how output_file affects the operation. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that wastes no words. It front-loads the core action and target resource while keeping the instruction brief and unambiguous.

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 tool has three parameters with zero schema description coverage, and the description fails to explain the required JSON file format, the semantics of output_file, or how updates interact with existing note data. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the missing usage context makes the definition incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It hints that input_file contains a JSON file, but does not explain the JSON structure, expected keys, or the role of output_file. The description adds only a vague notion that the input provides update data, leaving agents to infer the format.

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 states a specific verb (update) and resource (existing note), and specifies the scope (fields and/or tags). It plainly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_note (creation) and delete_notes (removal), and is the only tool in the list dedicated to updating an existing note.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_note or remove_tags_from_notes. It does not mention conditions like 'use when you have a note_id and want to modify its content or tags', nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusions.

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