update_note

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates critical behavioral traits: type restrictions (plain_text only), destructive replacement semantics for tags (覆盖/overwrite), and partial update capability (optional fields). Missing: error behavior for invalid note_id, permission requirements, or atomicity guarantees.

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?

Four sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose (sentence 1). Immediate constraint warning with emoji (sentence 2). Validation rule (sentence 3). Behavioral detail (sentence 4). Excellent density and scannability.

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?

Given mutation tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no annotations/output schema, description adequately covers: purpose, type constraints, validation rules, and mutation semantics (replace vs append). Could be improved by mentioning return value format or error cases, but sufficient for correct invocation.

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% with detailed Chinese descriptions already covering 'new' values and optionality. Description adds crucial validation logic not present in schema: '至少需要传 title、content、tags 中的一个' (at least one required). Adds warning emoji structure for constraints. Adds value beyond schema despite high coverage baseline.

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?

Description clearly states the specific action (更新/update) on the resource (已有笔记/existing notes) and identifies the updatable fields (title, content, tags). It distinguishes scope from siblings by limiting to 'plain_text' type explicitly, differentiating from 'save_note' (creation) and media-specific tools.

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?

Provides clear constraints for invocation: 'plain_text only' restriction, and validation rule requiring at least one of title/content/tags. Explains tag replacement semantics which implicitly contrasts with sibling 'add_note_tags'. However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' alternatives (e.g., doesn't explicitly direct users to 'save_note' for new notes or 'add_note_tags' for appending).

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