update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important side effects: title may trigger file rename, category may trigger file move, empty tags/category clear those fields, and the return value is the updated note. This is strong coverage for a simple mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or fluff.

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?

The description adequately explains parameters, behavioral side effects, and return type. The only minor gap is that 'Updated note as dict' does not enumerate the dict's fields, but this is acceptable given the note's schema is likely shared and no output schema was provided.

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%, but the Args section fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and special behavior: note_id is a UUID, title may rename the file, tags accepts an empty list to clear, and category accepts an empty string to clear. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 an existing note.' The phrase 'Only provided fields are updated' clarifies the partial-update semantics, which distinguishes it from create_note, delete_note, and full-overwrite operations.

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?

Description clearly establishes the operation context: modifying an existing note by providing optional fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling context makes the intended use unambiguous.

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