update_annotation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real value by signaling full-replacement semantics (not a partial update) and a version gate ('Umami 3.4+'), but it says nothing about required permissions, what happens if the annotation doesn't exist, or whether the operation is destructive/irreversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical version note is the only extra and it earns its place by signaling a compatibility constraint.

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 four-required-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (which fields, replace semantics, version requirement) but omits permissions, failure modes, and confirmation of what is returned. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 20% (only 'date' is documented), so the description must compensate. It names three of the five parameters (date, note, all-day flag), but leaves websiteId and annotationId unaddressed and adds no clarification on allDay defaults or note constraints beyond the schema's min/maxLength.

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 names a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('annotation') and enumerates the fields it touches (date, note, all-day flag), so it is clearly distinct from create_annotation, delete_annotation, and get_annotation. It stops short of explicitly disambiguating itself from those siblings by name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this rather than create_annotation, get_annotation, or delete_annotation, and no prerequisites are given. The word 'Replace' weakly implies a full overwrite rather than a partial patch, but the agent must infer that.

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