propose_update_note

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that: a before/after diff is produced, and the plan is refused if the note changed before apply_plan (stale-write protection). It does not say what the plan returns (e.g. a plan id) or how the refusal surfaces.

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 tight sentences plus one conditional clause, all front-loaded: what it is, what it produces, and the concurrency guard. No filler.

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 read-only staging tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect (diff), and failure mode (stale-write refusal) and routes to apply_plan. The remaining gap is the shape of the returned plan and the accepted value format for fields/tags.

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 the load. It names the two optional concepts ('fields' and 'tags') and the single-note scope, but gives no format guidance — notably that fields is a name→value map — and never addresses note_id. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Dry run for editing one note's fields and/or replacing its tags') plus the scope ('one note'). An agent can distinguish this from propose_add_notes, propose_delete_notes, and apply_plan without opening any 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 frames this as a dry run and names apply_plan as the follow-on step, which tells the agent where this fits in the propose/apply workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or what alternative stages other mutations, but the context is clear.

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