zero_update_note

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: partial update (only sent fields are modified) and immutability of id and created fields. This is sufficient for basic understanding, though it omits side effects, permissions, and return value.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loads the core idea, but it lacks necessary detail for an 8-parameter tool. It achieves conciseness at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given no output schema and 8 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description should explain return behavior and parameter semantics. It does neither, and only weakly differentiates from zero_write_note via the partial update concept.

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%, so description must compensate. It only mentions body and the constraint on id/created, but provides no explanation for other parameters like state, tags, add_links, etc. The meaning of 'add_links' and 'add_evidence' arrays is entirely unclear.

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?

Description clearly states the tool updates a note by editing only the sent fields, and explicitly prohibits editing id and created. This distinguishes it from create or full-write actions like zero_write_note.

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 implies partial update usage ('แก้เฉพาะฟิลด์ที่ส่ง') but does not explicitly mention when to use this vs alternatives, nor provide prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling zero_write_note suggests a create/full-write counterpart, but no direct comparison is made.

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