Update note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Only the fields you pass are changed' (partial update), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not mention error cases, authentication requirements, return value, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving notable gaps.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('Update an existing note by id') and a concise explanation of partial update. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal for a mutation tool. It does not explain the success/failure behavior, whether the updated note is returned, or what happens if the id does not exist. This is a significant gap in context for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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?

Only 25% of parameters have schema descriptions (only id), and the description does not compensate by explaining body, tags, or title semantics. It only generically refers to 'the fields you pass', which is behavioral rather than parameter-specific. The partial update hint does not clarify what each field means or how it will be used.

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 'Update an existing note by id', which uses a specific verb and resource, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like create_note, delete_note, and get_note. The partial-update behavior is also clarified with 'Only the fields you pass are changed'.

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 when to use the tool (when you have an existing note id and want to change it), but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The partial-update note adds some usage context, but there is no direct guidance contrasting it with delete_note or create_note.

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