zotero_update_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly warns that 'the old content is overwritten,' which is the critical side effect of this mutation tool, and adds a practical mitigation by suggesting a fetch-first workflow. It does not cover permission or reversibility details, but the core destructive behavior is disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by an important caution and alternative. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundant boilerplate.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully described parameters and an output schema available. The description covers the action, the main destructive consequence, and how to avoid data loss when editing. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that note_html is the entire replacement content—not a partial update—and that note_key refers to an existing note that will have its content overwritten. This reinforces the replace semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Replace a note's content with new HTML.' This clearly identifies the action and target, and distinguishes it from siblings like create_note or update_item_fields by focusing on overwriting a note's HTML content.

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 clear context: use this tool to replace, and if you need to edit rather than replace, fetch the existing content first with zotero_item_metadata. It names an alternative workflow explicitly, though it does not enumerate exclusions for all sibling tools.

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