update_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation, the description lacks details on permissions, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), side effects (e.g., whether updates are reversible), or response format. This is a significant gap 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('update an existing note') and specifies the scope ('content or metadata'), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, permissions, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it reliably beyond basic parameter mapping.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (id, name, content, groupId). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'content or metadata', which loosely maps to parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource 'existing note's content or metadata', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_group' or 'update_todo', which have similar naming patterns but target different resources.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID), exclusions (e.g., what happens if the note doesn't exist), or comparisons to related tools like 'append_to_note' or 'create_note', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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