update_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 mentions the HTTP method (PUT) which implies idempotent update semantics, and the HTML rendering behavior is disclosed. However, it doesn't state whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens to omitted fields, whether personId association is required, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical conditional (isHtml) is stated immediately. The HTTP method/path is a useful addition. It earns a 4 because it's efficient and well-ordered, though it could have added a bit more behavioral context without becoming bloated.

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, the description is thin. It doesn't explain update semantics (partial vs full), whether the note must exist, what happens to omitted fields, or the response format. The schema covers parameters well, but the behavioral context around the update operation is missing. An agent would need to infer too much about how this tool behaves.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds one meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema: the isHtml=true requirement when body contains HTML. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship between body and extraBody, or whether subject is optional, but the schema covers those adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of 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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Edit a note.' It also includes the HTTP method and path (PUT /notes/{id}), which helps distinguish it from create_note and get_note. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_note or update_person, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

The description gives one specific usage condition: if body contains HTML markup, isHtml=true must be passed. This is useful guidance for when to set a parameter, but it doesn't say when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_note or update_person. The context is implied by the tool name and sibling list, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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