fenbs_update_context_note

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and delivers: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change; the rest are kept'), audit behavior ('Recorded in History under your name'), and an authorization requirement ('Needs permission to change tasks'). That is substantive behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its motivation before identification, update semantics, audit, and permission notes. No filler and every sentence carries a distinct piece of information.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: mutation semantics, identification, audit trail, and permission needs. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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 100%, so every parameter including id/match/title/body/project/category is already documented with its own semantics. The description's restatement that the note can be named 'by id ... or by its exact title' duplicates the schema rather than extending it, so the 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?

States a specific verb (change) and resource (context note) plus the rationale for editing rather than adding. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling fenbs_add_context_note by contrasting 'change ... instead of adding another that contradicts it', and points at fenbs_list_context_notes as the id source.

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 when-to-use guidance ('a context note that is out of date, instead of adding another that contradicts it') and names the alternative it replaces. It also explains the two valid identification paths (id from fenbs_list_context_notes, or exact title), leaving little to inference.

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