update_note

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds 'safe, key-preserving' context, which goes slightly beyond annotations by specifying that the key is preserved and that the operation is safe. However, it does not disclose details like version mismatch handling or permission requirements, which would be valuable given the write nature of the tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence states the action and safety guarantee; the second clarifies the version parameter. There is no wasted text, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers the version requirement and the general edit operation but omits potential constraints (e.g., content length, behavior on version conflict) and return format. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, this level of completeness is acceptable but not thorough.

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 compensate for missing parameter explanations. It explicitly explains the version parameter ('from list_notes') and implies key/content through 'key-preserving' and 'edit a note's content'. Key and content are not explicitly defined, but their roles are inferable from the purpose statement. This partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool edits a note's content in place, which is a specific verb+resource action. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_note (create) and list_notes (list), and the phrase 'key-preserving' further clarifies that the note's identifier remains unchanged.

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 implies usage context by noting the version must come from list_notes, which serves as a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., create_note) or provide exclusionary guidance. The usage guidance is present but only implied.

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