update_sticky_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' and lists fields, but does not state whether the update is partial or full, coordinate semantics, permission requirements, or what the response contains.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loads the action and resource, and contains no redundant or filler 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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical context such as partial update behavior, coordinate system details, required identifier semantics, and return value information, making it insufficient for reliable tool 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 only 38%, so the description must compensate. The parenthetical groups x/y as 'position', width/height as 'size', and names 'text' and 'color', giving meaningful semantics to otherwise undocumented parameters. However, it omits coordinate units and constraints.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' and names the resource 'sticky note' with a parenthetical list of updatable aspects (text, position, color, size). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_sticky_notes and update_text_box.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_sticky_notes is for new notes, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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