Edit Note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It directly states 'Note content is completely replaced when updated,' which is a critical side effect not evident from the schema alone. It also conveys the partial-update semantic via 'Only include fields you want to change,' adding transparency about how omitted fields are handled.

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 remarkably concise at three short sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides essential usage guidance and a key behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple update tool with only three parameters all described in the schema. The description covers the core purpose, usage instructions, and the critical replacement behavior. While it doesn't mention return values or error handling, that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema; the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating 'Only include fields you want to change' and 'Required: note_id', which informs how parameters should be used together. This guidance goes beyond the individual field descriptions and clarifies the update pattern.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing note in Less Annoying CRM' with a specific verb ('update') and resource ('note'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note, delete_note, and get_note by focusing on modifying an existing record.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Only include fields you want to change' and 'Required: note_id.' It also clarifies that note content is completely replaced when updated, which helps decide what to include. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the 'existing' qualifier implicitly excludes create operations, making the usage context clear.

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