update_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'update' but discloses nothing about permissions required, reversibility, atomicity of patch operations, partial-failure behavior, or the response shape. For an un-annotated mutation tool with nested objects, this is a substantial gap.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the parameter guidance following immediately. Every clause 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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects needs more disclosure than this. The description explains the two write modes but omits permission requirements, error/partial-update behavior, and response format, leaving the agent under-informed about execution consequences.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, patch, and fields, including the op enum and mutual exclusivity. The description's mention of set/clear/addItems/removeItems merely restates the schema enum, though it does add a light semantic contrast between the two modes. Baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: 'Update an existing Productboard note.' This is clear and distinct from get_note/create_note/delete_note. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the similarly-named update_entity sibling, which the name alone leaves ambiguous.

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?

It provides a within-tool rule ('fields' for simple replacement vs 'patch' for granular operations), which is helpful, but gives no guidance on when to choose update_note over update_entity or other siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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