Update note fields

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real value beyond them: fields not listed are preserved, previous values are irrecoverably lost, success returns null, and media is appended rather than replacing the field. That is solid supplementary disclosure but not exhaustive (no permission or failure behavior).

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the destructive-overwrite warning and the notes_info prerequisite are front-loaded, and the media-append rule comes last. No restatement of the name or filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (null on success), and covers the destructive nature, the partial-update semantics, and the non-obvious media append behavior for a 5-parameter nested tool. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the nested source/filename/fields descriptions are already rich, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning about interaction between parameters — that media attaches to the new value or, if the field isn't overwritten, the current one — which goes beyond the schema's per-parameter text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Overwrites the given fields of an existing note') and adds a disambiguating parenthetical that the ID is a note ID, not a card ID. That directly separates it from card-oriented siblings like cards_info or suspend.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite workflow — read the note with notes_info first if you need the previous values — and tells the agent to omit fields when only attaching media. It does not name an alternative for creation (add_note) or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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