update_note

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only flag non-read-only, idempotent, destructive, open-world) by disclosing PATCH-style partial-update behavior, the fact that 'content' destructively replaces the whole body, and optimistic-concurrency semantics via etag. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs to avoid data loss on a mutation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the destructive-content caveat, then the concurrency hint. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 6-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers update semantics, replacement risk, and conflict handling. It does not describe the response payload, but no output schema exists and the critical call-time guidance is present.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description must carry weight: it explains that 'content' replaces the entire body and clarifies the etag's conflict-refusal purpose. The remaining parameters (id, title, category, favorite) are self-evident and left to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 ('Update a note') and immediately disambiguates the patch semantics with 'Only the supplied fields change.' It also names the sibling it is not (append_to_note), so an agent can route correctly without reading either 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?

Explicitly routes content-appending work to append_to_note and tells the agent to pass the etag from get_note for conflict detection. It stops short of enumerating other alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. when vs set_note_category or update_settings), but the primary branching decision is covered.

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