update_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation is destructive ('Overwrite') and that it will refuse to proceed on non-existent paths. This provides important safety and error-behavior context beyond the schema, though it does not detail side effects or permissions.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the failure condition is stated immediately after, making the behavior easy to parse quickly.

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 has only two required parameters and an output schema, so return values need no explanation. The description covers the primary behavior and a key edge case (non-existent path). Minor gaps remain, such as whether the entire note is replaced or just the content, but 'overwrite' sufficiently implies full replacement.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by clarifying that 'path' must refer to an already-existing note and that 'content' is the new overwriting content. However, it does not describe the path format or any constraints on content, leaving agents to infer from parameter names.

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 ('Overwrite') and resource ('an existing note'), clearly stating the tool's action. The phrase 'Refuses if path doesn't already exist' differentiates it from create_note and append_fleeting by emphasizing it only modifies existing notes.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when an existing note must be overwritten. The refusal condition explicitly states when not to use it (when the path does not already exist), though it does not name alternatives like create_note. This is clear usage context without full alternative routing.

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