remnote_update_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool updates an existing note but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., does it overwrite or merge?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an existing note in RemNote') and specifies key operations. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage hints or behavioral details.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, doesn't explain return values (since no output schema), and provides minimal parameter guidance beyond the schema. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters (remId, title, appendContent, addTags, removeTags) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing actions ('change title, append content, or modify tags'), which loosely maps to parameters but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('update') and resource ('existing note in RemNote') with specific actions ('change title, append content, or modify tags'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remnote_create_note' (create vs. update) and 'remnote_read_note' (read vs. update), though it doesn't explicitly mention all siblings. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing note ID), exclusions (e.g., not for creating new notes), or comparisons to siblings like 'remnote_append_journal' (which might be for journal-specific updates). Usage is implied by the verb 'update' but lacks explicit context.

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