update_note

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the update is a full replace (existing title/body are destroyed, not merged), that dry_run previews current title and body size with reads only, that Automation access to Notes is required, and that a non-None folder is rejected loudly. These match readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting them.

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 two-sentence structure is front-loaded and dense with decision-relevant facts — no filler. Minor deductions for the internal issue reference '(#49)', which means nothing to an agent, and for the heavy backtick/parenthetical compression that makes it slightly harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 five-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema in place, this covers everything an agent needs: id source, must-omit folder, dry_run default and preview semantics, permission prerequisite, and the nature of the side effect. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry all five parameters — and it does: id (provenance and stability), title/body (plaintext, escaped, full replace), folder (must be omitted or it fails), dry_run (default true plus its exact preview behavior). It fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 both the verb and resource ('Update a note by id') and immediately qualifies the semantics as a 'full-replace title+body' operation with the id preserved, which distinguishes it from create_note/delete_note and from any partial-update expectation. An agent knows exactly what this call does before opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'id from notes / notes_all / create_note', a hard exclusion ('folder must be omitted — update cannot move a note between folders'), and a decision rule for dry_run ('DEFAULTS TO TRUE ... pass dry_run=false to overwrite'). When-to-use, when-not-to, and alternatives are all present rather than inferred.

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