Update Text Note

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive and idempotent. The description adds the key behavioral trait that updating text content triggers re-analysis, providing useful context beyond the annotations. However, other potential side effects (e.g., updating tags) are not mentioned.

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 sentence with two clauses, no wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately flags the side effect of re-analysis. Highly efficient.

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 the rich input schema and presence of an output schema, the description provides a high-level summary that covers the main aspects. It mentions the critical re-analysis trigger. Could be more detailed about additional updateable fields (tags, folder), but the phrase 'metadata' covers these. Adequate for the complexity.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented. The global description only summarizes 'name, content, or metadata' without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool updates an existing text note's name, content, or metadata, distinguishing it from create_text_note and other tools. The specific verb 'update' and resource 'text note' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 use for modifying an existing text note but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. create_text_note or other tools. No alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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