Update a note

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate idempotent and non-destructive), the description reveals a subtle behavior: rewriting content leaves existing enhanced_content in place and the app continues to treat it as current, with the reply warning about this. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance that annotations cannot express and prevents the agent from assuming content changes also regenerate enhanced_content.

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 tight, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence carries distinct value: the first names the operation, the second sets boundaries, the third clarifies a critical side effect. There is no repetitive or filler wording.

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 a non-trivial semantic quirk around enhanced_content and non-writable fields, and the description captures it well. It informs the agent what can be changed, what cannot, and what happens after a content rewrite, which is sufficient context for correct invocation even without an output schema.

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?

With only 25% schema description coverage, the description compensates meaningfully: it identifies title, content, and folder as the writable parameters, and explains a consequence of content rewriting. It also clarifies non-writable fields even though they are not in the schema, which helps the agent avoid offering unsupported updates. It does not elaborate on note_id, but that parameter is self-evidentifying and required.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change a note's title, content or folder in the local OpenWhispr app.' It clearly scopes the operation to update actions on notes and names the exact editable fields, making it unmistakable from sibling tools like create_note, delete_note, or update_dictionary.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when you need to change a note's title, content, or folder. It also explicitly states when not to use it by listing note_type, transcript, and enhanced_content as deliberately non-writable, though it does not point to alternative tools by name or provide broader conditionals.

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