update_note_fields

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing atomicity, undoability, that IDs/tags/scheduling are preserved, that stale expected_fields abort the batch, and that identical arguments can be retried after a timeout. These are exactly the mutation-behavior facts the annotations cannot convey, and they are consistent with them.

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?

Front-loaded and dense with no filler; the count bound, prerequisites and concurrency rule each get a clause. The telegraphic sentence fragments ('First inspect search_notes.') trade a little clarity for compactness.

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. For a batch mutation tool the description still covers authorization, preconditions, protected fields, atomicity, undo, ID/tag/scheduling preservation, stale-state aborts and retry behavior — nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 carries the burden: it explains that fields are plain-text non-first fields, that expected_fields must match exact current HTML, and that batching is 1-100 notes. Only note_id's role in the nested object is left implicit.

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 and resource ('edit 1-100 existing notes in place') with scope, batch bounds and in-place semantics. It is clearly distinguished from the create/search siblings by naming search_notes as the prerequisite inspection step and by excluding first/card-generating fields.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions: user authorization, inspect search_notes first, and no first/card-generating fields. It does not route the agent between this and other mutation siblings like preview_notes or create_notes, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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