update-highlight

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't add meaningful behavioral context. It merely restates the action ('Update') without disclosing details like partial update semantics (whether omitted fields are left unchanged), the requirement that at least one of color/note be provided, or what the tool returns. No annotations are contradicted, but no additional transparency is offered.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It communicates the core purpose efficiently and front-loads the action and target.

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?

The tool is simple and has well-documented parameters and annotations, but the description omits key contextual details: it does not say that highlightId is required (though the schema does), it does not clarify the update semantics (e.g., whether both fields can be set at once), and with no output schema, it does not indicate what the tool returns. These gaps make the description adequate but incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (highlightId, color, note) with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain their formats. The phrase 'color or note' adds minimal value by naming the updatable fields but does not clarify whether both can be updated simultaneously or whether at least one is required. This remains ambiguous, consistent with the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Update', the resource 'highlight', and the specific fields affected ('color or note'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-highlight, delete-highlight, and get-highlight, which have different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create-highlight is for new highlights or delete-highlight for removal, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts where this update tool is the appropriate choice. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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