update_note

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

The description highlights that tags are REPLACED, which is key behavioral info. It is a mutation tool with no annotations, so the description carries full burden. It covers main behavior but omits details like error handling or prerequisites.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with key information, no redundancy. Every word adds value.

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 simple parameter set and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function. It explains the two optional parameters and their effect, though it could mention that note_id must exist. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'fields' changes fields and 'tags' replaces the note's tags, adding meaning beyond the schema. It does not detail the structure of fields, but that is defined in the 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 fields and/or the full tag set of a note in one call, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_note_fields and update_note_tags which handle each aspect separately.

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 instructs to pass 'fields' to change fields and/or 'tags' to replace tags, providing clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool in favor of its siblings.

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