notes_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that content supports HTML and pin flags exist, but it does not detail whether updates are reversible, what permissions are required, or other side effects. The description adds some context but leaves gaps.

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 relatively concise, with clear sections for workflow tips and use cases. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured for quick scanning.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main update scenarios through examples. It doesn't document all possible combinations but is sufficient for a typical update operation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by showing how parameters interact in examples (e.g., 'Update and pin'), which provides semantic meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 'Update an existing note' and elaborates with specifics: 'Updates note content, entity associations, or pinned status.' This distinguishes it from related tools like notes_create and notes_delete.

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 provides workflow tips (e.g., all fields except id are optional, at least one field must be updated) and common use cases with example JSON. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, the examples guide appropriate usage.

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