update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses content conversion behavior (markdown is converted to HTML before saving) and attribute upsert semantics ('If an attribute with the same type and name exists, its value will be updated; otherwise a new attribute is created'). It does not describe what happens to existing content/title if omitted (e.g., whether omitted fields are left unchanged), response format, or auth/error behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences with the key distinction (markdown/HTML) front-loaded. The attribute semantics are in the schema, so the description being short is appropriate. Slight redundancy: 'Content can be provided as markdown (default) or HTML' is somewhat repeated in contentFormat's schema description, but the description remains efficient.

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 an update tool with 5 params and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the markdown/HTML distinction but lacks behavioral edge cases: what happens if title/content is omitted (preserve or clear?), whether attributes are entirely replaced or merged per-attribute, and confirmation/return behavior. Sibling patch_note exists, and without distinguishing it, the completeness is only moderate.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by confirming contentFormat's effect ('markdown (default) or HTML') but mostly restates the schema. It does not clarify whether title/content are optional independently when updating, which is a meaningful gap given noteId is the only required parameter.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update a note's title and/or content') and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_note and create_note. It also highlights the markdown/HTML content choice, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description clearly conveys when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_note or delete_note, and the sibling list includes patch_note for partial updates but no exclusions are stated. It could explicitly say 'use patch_note for partial attribute updates' but the context is clear enough.

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