slipbox_update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly states partial updates (only provided fields change), how to clear fields via empty strings, and the literature promotion constraint. This goes well beyond a vague 'update' and covers key behavioral traits, though it doesn't mention error handling or return values.

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 well-structured with a short introductory paragraph and a clear Args list. It's slightly long due to necessary parameter explanations, but every sentence earns its place. The front-loaded update semantics and clearing behavior are immediately clear.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: update semantics, field clearing, and the literature constraint. It lacks mention of errors or return values, but the provided information is sufficient for safe and correct usage.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter, including formats (comma-separated tags, newline-separated references) and optionality. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 updates an existing note, using the specific verb 'Update' and the resource 'an existing note'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create or delete by focusing on modification.

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 for modifying existing notes, and provides a specific constraint for literature notes (must have at least one reference). It doesn't explicitly contrast with create/delete, but the context is clear and the constraint gives actionable guidance.

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