update_notes_by_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Update' aligns with these. It adds the PUT method and points to GET/schema for discovering fields, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, partial vs full replacement, or other behavioral nuances. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line action, the endpoint, and concise argument definitions. The payload-discovery instruction earns its place and nothing extraneous is included.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for a correct call: it identifies the resource, explains the id parameter, and tells the agent how to determine expected body fields. The main gap is lack of detail on partial versus full update semantics, but openWorldHint and the schema pointer mitigate this.

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 provides only types and additionalProperties=true, so schema coverage is effectively 0%. The description compensates by explaining that id is the id/slug of the resource and that body is the request payload whose fields should be discovered via the GET or /schema endpoint. This is meaningful added semantic guidance.

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 'Update a note' and gives the HTTP method/path, clearly identifying the operation and resource. The verb distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_notes and delete_notes_by_id, though it is somewhat close to a restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_notes or delete_notes_by_id. The only instruction, to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint first, is about constructing the request body, not about choosing this tool.

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