Modify an existing watch note using its watch ID to keep Backlog notifications and comments accurate.
Updates an existing watch note
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | Updated note for the watch | |
| watchId | Yes | Watch ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Input schema / properties / organizationAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional organization name. Use list_organizations to inspect available organizations.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it doesn't say the existing note is overwritten irreversibly, what happens if the watchId doesn't exist, or whether permissions are required. For a destructive mutation with zero added context, this is a clear gap.
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. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations beyond safety hints, yet the description says nothing about return values, error conditions for an invalid watchId, or the overwrite semantics of the note. For a destructive two-parameter mutation it should do considerably more.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions ('Updated note for the watch', 'Watch ID'). The description adds no format, length, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (updates) and a resource narrowed to 'watch note', which is slightly more than a restatement of the name. However, it never explains what a watch is or how this differs from sibling mutations like add_watching, delete_watching, or mark_watching_as_read, so the agent must infer from the name alone.
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?
No guidance on when to use this instead of add_watching (to create) or delete_watching, nor any prerequisites such as needing an existing watchId. The agent is left to infer routing from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.