Update note

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the previous body is returned as undo material and that the tool fails with a clear error for password-protected notes. These are important behavioral details not available from the annotations alone.

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 three sentences of dense, useful information with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior, then adds the key sibling distinction, return value, and failure mode. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: what is overwritten, what is returned, the failure condition, and how it differs from a closely related sibling. No output schema exists, but the description still communicates the key return behavior.

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 input schema already fully documents all three parameters with descriptions, including the optionality of title and the plain-text nature of body. The description reinforces that body is replaced and title is optional but does not add significant semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('an existing note's body, and optionally its title'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling append_to_note by stating that this tool overwrites content rather than appends.

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 explicitly names the alternative append_to_note and explains the key difference: update_note overwrites existing content while append_to_note presumably adds to it. This gives an agent a clear decision rule for selecting between the two tools.

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