update_note

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description clearly discloses the destructive overwrite behavior: it replaces, does not merge, and explains the semantics of omitting or passing null. It also flags the risk of losing current text and instructs the agent on the safe pattern (get_note first). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: state the operation and return value, warn about overwrite semantics, explain null/omit behavior, and provide the append workflow. No redundancy or 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?

Given the output schema is present, return values are already documented. The description covers the essential behavioral nuance (no merge, omission semantics) and the critical alternative workflow for append. An agent has everything necessary to call the tool correctly without external context.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that null keeps the current value for both fields. The description adds the clarification that omitting a field also leaves it alone, which is a small extra, but overall it does not materially extend the schema's parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb (Overwrite), resource (title and/or content of an existing note), and outcome (return the updated note). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings list_notes, get_note, create_note, and delete_note.

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 context for use: modifying an existing note by overwriting fields. It also gives explicit guidance for the alternative of appending content, telling the agent to call get_note first and pass the full combined text. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions such as 'use create_note for new notes,' though this is implied by 'existing note.'

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