Update an Apple Note by changing its title or replacing its entire HTML body. Body replacements can remove formatting or attachments; locked notes are rejected.
Change a note title and/or replace its entire HTML body. Replacing the body can remove formatting or attachments; locked notes are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| noteId | Yes | ||
| htmlBody | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: replacing the body can strip formatting and attachments, and locked notes are rejected. It does not cover permissions or partial-update semantics, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the risk and constraint. Nothing redundant; every clause earns its place.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description discloses the main data-loss risk and the locked-note failure mode. It could still say what happens to unspecified fields or what a success returns, but the essentials are present.
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 carries the burden, yet it only names two of the three parameters (title and HTML body) and omits noteId entirely. It adds conceptual meaning ('entire HTML body', replace vs. merge) but leaves the key required parameter unaddressed.
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 a note title and/or replace its entire HTML body') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like apple_notes_create, apple_notes_get, and apple_notes_search by scoping to modification of an existing note.
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?
Usage is implied by the verb and the sibling set (edit an existing note rather than create/read one), but the description never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as recreating a note, nor any prerequisites beyond the locked-note rejection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.