update_note_fields

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the update and partial nature. Missing details include: idempotency, error handling (e.g., invalid note_id), permission requirements, and whether the update is atomic. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no superfluous words. It conveys the core action and key behavior (partial update) immediately. Perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Despite the existence of an output schema (covering return values), the description lacks essential context for a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage. It omits prerequisites (note must exist), behavioural safety, error conditions, and usage boundaries. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the missing detail.

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 0%, yet the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain valid field names, the structure of the 'fields' object, or data types. The tool has two required parameters, but their semantics are entirely undefined in the description.

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's fields. 'Update' is a specific verb, and 'one or more fields of an existing note' uniquely identifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_note (addition) and delete_notes (deletion).

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 explains that only passed fields are changed, implying a partial update. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_note for new notes, delete_notes for removal). No 'when not to use' or comparison to siblings is provided, leaving guidance minimal.

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