update_note_fields

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses partial update behavior and auto-conversion of content, but omits potential side effects, validation, or error handling. Provides useful context but lacks depth.

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 concise at 5 sentences, with main purpose front-loaded. It efficiently covers partial updates, conversion behavior, and parameter descriptions. Minor redundancy could be removed.

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 output schema exists, return values aren't needed. The description covers core behavior and parameters but lacks information on error conditions (e.g., invalid note_id) or field validation. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides basic explanations for both parameters (note_id and fields), including that note_id is not a card ID and fields is a mapping. This adds meaning but is minimal; more detail could be given.

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 clearly states it updates text content of fields on a note, using specific verb and resource. It mentions 'update' and 'fields on an existing note', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_note_tags, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 notes that MathJax and code blocks are auto-converted similarly to add_note, implying a use case, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on when not to use it.

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