Update an existing plain-text note by changing its title, content, or tags; provide at least one field, and tags replace existing tags.
更新已有笔记的标题、内容或标签。⚠️ 仅支持 plain_text 类型笔记，链接笔记、图片笔记等暂不支持更新。至少需要传 title、content、tags 中的一个。tags 是替换操作，会覆盖原有标签。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | 新标签列表（可选，不传则保持原标签；传则替换原有标签） | |
| title | No | 新标题（可选，不传则不更新） | |
| content | No | 新内容，Markdown 格式（可选，不传则不更新） | |
| note_id | Yes | 笔记 ID（必填，优先传十进制字符串） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / note_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"笔记 ID（必填）"New value: +"笔记 ID（必填，优先传十进制字符串）"Input schema / properties / note_id / typePrevious value: -[
- "number",
- "string"
-]New value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and usefully discloses the plain_text restriction, the at-least-one-field rule, and that tags are replaced rather than merged. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior for unsupported note types, or what the operation returns, so behavioral coverage remains only moderate.
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 short, front-loads the core action, then immediately surfaces the critical warning and validation rule. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.
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?
For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the key call-time constraints: supported note type, required non-empty payload, and tag replacement behavior. It does not explain return values or permission requirements, but the schema fully documents the individual parameters.
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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds a cross-parameter constraint not present in the schema (at least one of title, content, or tags must be supplied) and reinforces the tags replacement semantics, giving it value beyond the parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: updating an existing note's title, content, or tags. It also scopes which note types are supported, which helps distinguish it from tools like create/save note flows, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.
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 clearly states an exclusion (only plain_text notes are supported; link and image notes cannot be updated) and a prerequisite (at least one of title, content, or tags must be passed). It does not contrast with alternatives such as add_note_tags or delete_note_tag, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.