notes_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation operation ('Update') but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified properties, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with a single sentence that directly states the action. There's no wasted verbiage, making it front-loaded and efficient, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential details about behavior, parameters, and usage context that an agent would need to invoke this tool correctly.

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 but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'noteId' refers to, what 'properties' contains (e.g., hs_note_body for content), or their formats. The description fails to provide meaningful context beyond what the bare schema structure implies.

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') and resource ('an existing note'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'notes_batch_update' or 'notes_create', but the core action is unambiguous.

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 like 'notes_batch_update' for multiple notes or 'notes_create' for new notes. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing an existing note ID or appropriate permissions.

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