update_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose mutability, the locator matching semantics, and supports_dry_run, which is helpful. Yet it does not clarify whether updates are partial or full replacements, what happens if a locator matches multiple notes, or what occurs when no note is found.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action and identification modes, then adds the dry_run detail in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 note-update tool operating on existing notes, the description provides enough to initiate a call: what resource it affects, how to identify notes, and the dry_run option. However, without output schema or annotation context, it leaves gaps about update semantics, error behavior, and how this operation differs from batch_edit or add_notes when used in a broader workflow.

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 high (75%), with descriptions already provided for notes, noteIndex, groupIndex, and trackIndex. The description adds useful context by clarifying that noteIndex is 0-based and that locator means onset/pitch match, but the schema already conveys much of this and the description does not substantively enrich parameter meanings beyond that.

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 resource: updating existing notes, and specifies the two supported identification methods (0-based noteIndex and onset/pitch locator). This distinguishes it from add_notes and delete_notes, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling batch_edit.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool when you need to modify already-existing notes rather than adding or removing them. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives like add_notes or batch_edit, so an agent has to infer the routing logic.

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