update_ops_note

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, so the description's additional burden is lighter. It adds that write permission is required, which is useful, but it does not mention that fields like tags or device/group scopes replace existing values or what the response contains.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the permission detail is front-loaded in parentheses. It is economical, though arguably too terse given the operation's variable semantics.

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 full schema coverage and annotations, an agent can construct a valid call using note_id and optional update fields, and the permission hint is a useful precondition. Missing context includes whether unspecified fields are preserved, how replacements work, and what a successful update returns.

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?

All five parameters have schema descriptions, including explicit notes like 'New tags (replaces existing)', so the schema already carries the parameter-meaning burden. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a clear verb and object: 'Update an ops note'. The parenthetical also signals that this is a privileged mutation. However, the core phrasing closely mirrors the tool name and does not describe what can be changed or how 'update' behaves.

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 only guidance is the write-permission requirement. There is no mention of when to use this versus get_ops_note, add_ops_note, or delete_ops_note, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are given.

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