Change a note

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses whole-text replacement of body, the exact success string 'Changed note #id: title', conditional exposure gated on an owner setting, and an approval mode that returns 'Waiting for approval in Sara' with no change applied. The annotations already flag destructive/idempotent, and the description adds the operational gates and side-effect timing an agent needs before mutating.

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?

Front-loaded with the mutation target and scope, followed by return value and then the availability/approval caveats in decreasing priority. Every sentence carries information, though the three-mode approval sentence is dense and could be tightened without losing signal.

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 destructive, gated mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return string, the no-op approval path, the off-state behavior, and the partial-update semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100%, so length limits, id validation, and the empty-string project removal are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that body is replaced as a whole and enumerates the three optional fields; it adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Change one of the owner's notes in Sara by its id') plus the mutable scope (title, text, project), which cleanly separates it from read_note, add_note, and delete_note. The id provenance from list_notes is named, so an agent can identify both the tool and its key input without opening the 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?

Explicitly routes to a sibling ('Read the note with read_note first if you mean to edit part of the text') and names list_notes as the source of ids. It also states the partial-update contract ('Only the fields you give change'), which is the decisive usage fact for an agent deciding between this and full-replacement behavior.

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