update_note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-readonly and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses optimistic-concurrency behavior (a fresh expectedRevision is required), and that shared notes and lossy rich-content edits are rejected. The one unstated behavior is what happens to fields that are omitted by the caller.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value constraint (REPLACE semantics with a fresh revision) is front-loaded before the refusal conditions. The emphasis on REPLACE is a deliberate and useful signal rather than noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations plus the text cover the safety and failure behavior. The remaining gap is the ambiguity of all-optional title/markdown fields under a REPLACE semantics — an agent cannot tell from the definition whether omitting one clears it.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It maps 'title/body' to the title and markdown params and attaches a freshness constraint to expectedRevision, but accountId and noteId receive no meaning at all, and it does not clarify whether omitted payload fields are cleared.

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?

States a specific verb (REPLACE) applied to a specific resource (one note's title/body) and names the mechanism (a fresh expectedRevision). The capitalized REPLACE disambiguates from a merge/patch tool, and the scope 'one note' separates it from create_note/delete_note/list_notes without the agent needing to open a schema.

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?

It gives the failure conditions (shared notes, lossy rich-content edits) and requires a fresh revision, which tells the agent when the call will be refused. However, it never routes the agent to alternatives (e.g. read_note first to obtain the revision, or create_note vs update_note), so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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