update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine side effect ('re-embedded automatically'), which is real value beyond structured data, but it omits the critical mutation semantics: whether omitted/null fields leave values unchanged or clear them, whether tags are replaced or merged, and whether the update is 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the mutation scope is front-loaded before the side-effect note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the re-embedding note helps. But for a 5-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the partial-update contract and the meaning of item_id unaddressed — an agent cannot call this confidently.

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. It lists four field names that map loosely onto the schema, but adds no semantics — nothing on whether null means 'no change' or 'clear', nothing on tag replacement vs merge, and it never mentions item_id, the sole required parameter.

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 ('Change') and resource ('note') and enumerates the mutable fields (title, text, project, tags). It is clearly distinct from add_note/delete, though it never names a sibling or states the scope constraint that item_id identifies the target.

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?

'Change a note's ...' implies this is for modifying an already-existing note rather than creating one, which implicitly separates it from add_note. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (note must exist), and no routing to restore_version for reverting.

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