postmd_update_note

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the auth requirement ('Requires an API key with documents:write'), the scope omission behavior, and an invariant ('The note must keep text or a colour'). However, it does not disclose what happens to omitted fields like content or quotedContent, whether the update is a merge or overwrite, or what error/response behavior looks like.

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 only three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. It includes useful operational details without filler. The final sentence is somewhat ambiguous but still concise and purposeful.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete for correctly invoking the tool. An agent still lacks needed semantics for required identifiers (docCode, noteId) and for content/quotedContent, and no return or error behavior is described. The included auth and scope details are helpful but not sufficient.

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 low at 33%; only color and scope have schema descriptions. The description does not explain docCode, noteId, content, or quotedContent, which are all undocumented in the schema. It adds only a vague constraint about text or colour, and it restates the scope omission behavior already present in the schema, so it fails to compensate for the parameter documentation gap.

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 and resource: 'Edit a note you wrote.' It also adds an ownership/scope qualifier ('you wrote') that helps distinguish this from sibling tools like postmd_add_note, postmd_delete_note, or postmd_update_document. The core purpose is immediately identifiable.

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 implies usage through 'Edit a note you wrote,' but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as postmd_add_note, postmd_delete_note, or postmd_update_document. It does provide a prerequisite (API key with documents:write) and a scoping behavior, but not clear when-to-use versus sibling tools.

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