Update a note

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

The annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that — partial-update semantics (omitted fields kept) and the replace-not-append semantics of record_ids. It does not discuss permissions or what an empty record_ids situation would look like, and the "REPLACES links" behavior sits somewhat in tension with destructiveHint=false, though link-set replacement is reasonably read as non-destructive of the note itself.

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 compact sentence with semicolons that front-loads the action and then the two non-obvious rules. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the name alone; nothing is padding.

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, the description needn't explain returns, and the brief "Returns structuredContent {note}" is a harmless pointer. Partial-update, replacement and validation behavior are all covered. The only gap is auth/permission expectations for a mutation tool.

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 schema already documents note_id, title, content and record_ids formats and limits, making 3 the baseline. The description does add meaning the schema lacks: record_ids is a full replacement set, not an additive one. That is a modest but real increment over the structured fields.

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?

"Changes a note's title, text or linked records by id" names a specific verb and resource and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent can distinguish this from heliyos_notes_create, heliyos_notes_get and heliyos_notes_delete without opening the schema. It stops just short of a 5 because it never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings (e.g. "to create a note use heliyos_notes_create").

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?

It gives clear usage context: only what you supply changes, and record_ids must contain the full desired link set rather than a delta. That is exactly the guidance an agent needs to avoid clobbering links. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool guidance is present.

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