Update notes

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

Annotations include idempotentHint and openWorldHint, which already indicate retry safety and flexible schema. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the id requirement; it does not disclose whether updates merge or replace fields, how missing IDs are handled, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations, but the added value is low.

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 very brief and every sentence earns its place: it states the core purpose and a critical input requirement. It could be slightly more detailed, but it is economical and free of filler.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete for a batch update tool. It does not explain entity_type options, update semantics, failure handling, or return format. The agent is left without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions that each notes object needs an id, but does not explain the entity_type parameter or the structure of the notes array. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent about how to construct valid inputs.

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 says 'Update multiple notes,' which clearly identifies the action (update), the resource (notes), and the scope (multiple). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool kommo_notes_update_one, which handles single notes.

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 for batch updates by stating 'multiple notes,' but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus kommo_notes_update_one or provide exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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