Update Note

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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate a write operation), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a partial update (PATCH-like) and tag_ids replaces the entire tag set. It also restricts the scope to 'active owned' notes. No contradiction with annotations is present. It does not disclose return values or error handling, but the provided insights exceed baseline expectations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a crucial detail about tag_ids behavior. There is no fluff, and every word contributes meaning. This is an example of concise, high-density documentation.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides a reasonable baseline: it clarifies the partial update nature and tag set replacement. However, it omits information about return values and does not elaborate on the semantics of several parameters (e.g., in_inbox, sort_order). It is adequate but leaves room for improvement in fully informing the agent.

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 for explaining parameters. It clarifies the semantics of tag_ids (replaces the complete set) and the general 'partial update' behavior for all fields. However, most of the 10 parameters (e.g., in_inbox, sort_order, container_id) are not explained at all, leaving significant ambiguity. The description adds value only for tag_ids, which is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: partially update an active owned Note. It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('Note'), and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'active owned' and the partial update semantics. This is a precise, differentiated purpose.

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 clear usage context: it is for partially updating notes, not for creating or deleting. It also highlights a key behavior ('tag_ids replaces the complete Tag set') which is an important guideline for using the tool correctly. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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