update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details: note_preview defaults to the first 100 characters if left empty, and contact_ids must be comma-separated and limited to 1-10. However, it does not disclose whether the update replaces the entire note or just provided fields, nor any authorization or error conditions, so transparency is partial.

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 extremely compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args block. Every line conveys necessary information, with the main verb front-loaded and no filler content.

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 are not the description's responsibility. All four parameters are explained with meaningful constraints and defaults, and the core update behavior is conveyed. The only gap is missing usage guidance and edge-case handling, but for a typical update tool, the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema has no descriptions for any parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each one: note_id as the Nimble ID, contact_ids as comma-separated IDs with a count limit, note as the full updated text, and note_preview with its default derivation rule. This exceeds the bare schema and gives the agent actionable semantics.

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 'Update an existing note,' using a specific verb+resource structure that distinguishes it from siblings like create_note, get_note, and delete_note. The word 'existing' explicitly limits scope to current notes, eliminating ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied through the verb 'update' and the word 'existing,' but no explicit guidance is given regarding when to use this tool versus create_note or other sibling note tools. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer that an existing note_id is required.

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