notes_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an existing note' implies a mutation operation but provides zero information about permissions required, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to existing note properties not mentioned in the update. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral transparency.

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 maximally concise at three words. While severely under-specified, it contains zero wasted words and is front-loaded with the essential action. Every word earns its place, though the place is too small for adequate tool documentation.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and complex nested parameters, the description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic purpose statement without any context about usage, behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes. For a tool that modifies data with multiple undocumented parameters, this level of documentation is dangerously incomplete.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for any parameters. The description 'Update an existing note' adds no information about the two required parameters (noteId and properties) or the nested properties object with hs_note_body, hs_timestamp, and hubspot_owner_id fields. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically undefined.

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 'Update an existing note' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'notes_update'. It provides the basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated or how this differs from sibling tools like notes_batch_update or notes_archive. It doesn't distinguish this tool from alternatives in any meaningful way.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for notes (notes_batch_update, notes_archive, notes_create, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this single-note update operation is appropriate versus batch operations or other related tools. This leaves the agent with no usage context.

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