update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses partial update semantics and parameter behaviors (Markdown, cross-links) but does not mention error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or the requirement that the note_id exists. It provides some behavioral context but is incomplete.

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 concise with 5 lines covering key points: purpose, partial update behavior, and two parameter notes. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though could be slightly more organized with bullet points.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the main partial update behavior and parameter details but lacks error handling, permissions, or idempotency info. The output schema accounts for return values, but overall completeness is average.

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?

Input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal semantic value for description (Markdown) and associated (cross-links) but provides no details for note_id or note_type_id. Given the low schema coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'note', and specifies it's a partial update via POST /v1/notes/{id}. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note and delete_note, meeting the specificity requirement.

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 that only provided fields are sent and omitted fields are preserved, guiding the agent on partial update behavior. It also mentions Markdown for description and cross-links via associated. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like a full update endpoint if one existed.

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