Update Note

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a full overwrite ('replace'), which is useful, but doesn't state whether this requires the note to exist, what permissions are needed, or whether changes are reversible.

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?

A single nine-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero 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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is not needed, but the description lacks any behavioral context (permissions, existence requirements, replacement semantics) and gives no usage guidance, making it thin for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema only defines types (note_id: string, content: string) without descriptive text. The description implies note_id identifies the target and content is the new value, but adds no format, length, or validation details beyond that. Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is low but the description maps parameters to their roles.

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 (replace) and resource (note, by id), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_note and delete_note. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_note's use case or clarify the replace semantics versus an additive update.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives like create_note if the note doesn't exist. The agent is left to infer the context entirely.

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