edit_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool edits a note and returns updated details, but it fails to disclose whether updates are incremental or full replacements, error handling for invalid note_id, or any side effects.

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 fairly concise with a structured parameter list and a returns clause, making it easy to scan. However, the parameter list is somewhat lengthy, and some descriptions could be tighter.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description partially covers the essentials but omits usage context, error conditions, and behavioral details like what happens with optional parameters. It provides enough for basic understanding but not full completeness.

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?

The description adds brief explanations for parameters like 'ID of the note to edit' and 'New note content', which provides some meaning beyond the schema (0% coverage). However, some parameters (e.g., task_name, task_id) lack clear roles in editing a note, causing ambiguity.

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 'Edit an existing note', specifying the verb ('edit') and resource ('existing note'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_note or delete_note.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios to avoid. It only lists parameters without context.

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