Update single note

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

The description provides no details about the update's effects—whether the note is replaced wholly or merged, whether existing fields are preserved, or whether any permissions are required. The annotations (idempotentHint, openWorldHint) are present but unexplained, and the description does not leverage them to add context. No contradiction exists.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with verb and object. No wasted words, ideal length.

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?

The tool has 3 required parameters, one nested object, and no output schema. The description is too minimal to convey how to construct a valid request, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites. The lack of return-value description is especially problematic given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the parameters. It fails to explain the 'note' object structure, the purpose of 'entity_type', or the format of 'id'. The enum in the schema gives choices but not semantics, and the nested object is entirely opaque.

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 action verb ('Update') and a resource ('a single note by ID'), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling kommo_notes_update (bulk update) and other note tools. The phrase 'by ID' also clarifies the single-record scope.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies single-note updates, but does not mention kommo_notes_update for bulk operations or the list/get tools for reading. This leaves the agent to infer context from naming conventions.

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