Freelo Update Note

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

Annotations already convey the key behavioral hints: non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description's partial-update semantics are useful but are largely restated in the schema's noteData description; it adds no new detail about auth, side effects, errors, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'All fields are optional - only provide what needs to change' is concise and directly instructs the agent how to construct the call.

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?

For a simple two-parameter update tool, the description plus schema and annotations is complete. The agent knows what to update, that the update is partial, and the schema supplies the required noteId and noteData structure; an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary.

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 100%, so the schema already documents noteId and noteData thoroughly. The description's 'title or content' maps to the schema's 'name' and 'content' fields but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb ('Updates'), a clear resource ('existing note'), and the exact mutable fields ('title or content'). This distinguishes it from related tools like freelo_create_note and freelo_get_note without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'existing note' clearly frames this as an update operation rather than creation, and 'only provide what needs to change' explains partial-update usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as freelo_create_note for new notes, so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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