update_branch_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation but doesn't state whether the operation appends to the existing note or replaces it, whether permissions are required, or whether changes are reversible. 'Update ... with a new change entry' hints at appending but leaves critical ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler wording. It efficiently communicates the core action and object without wasted space.

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 no annotations and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the 'running note' concept, append vs. overwrite behavior, return value, error conditions, or its relationship to sibling tools like archive_branch_note and read_branch_notes.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's 'new change entry' and 'current branch' loosely map to message and branchName, but it doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Update') and the object ('the running note for the current branch') and indicates the payload ('a new change entry'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_branch_notes, clear_branch_note, and archive_branch_note. However, 'current branch' is slightly ambiguous given the required branchName parameter, and 'running note' is a domain-specific term not explained.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The verb 'update' and sibling names imply usage, but the description doesn't state when to prefer this over related tools like update_context_file or how it relates to archive/clear operations.

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