update_note

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. It does explain the three modes and that frontmatter fields are merged, but it does not address edge behavior such as handling missing notes, whether replace mode preserves frontmatter when the frontmatter parameter is omitted, or what the return value indicates.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core action and modes front-loaded, followed by the frontmatter behavior. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no filler or repetition.

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?

The combination of the description and the detailed schema gives an agent the essentials: required path, mode semantics, content behavior, and frontmatter merging. The lack of an output schema and annotations leaves some gaps around return values and error cases, but the tool is simple enough that the core calling contract is substantially complete.

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 100%, and the schema already documents mode behavior, path, content, and frontmatter merge semantics in detail. The description mostly restates what the schema provides, so it adds little parameter-level value beyond the structured definitions.

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 specific verb ('Update'), a resource ('an existing note'), and explicitly enumerates the supported modes and frontmatter merging behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_note, read_note, and delete_note.

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 phrase 'an existing note' implies this tool is for modifying notes that already exist, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer update_note over create_note for missing notes, or over manage_tags/search_vault for related operations, leaving alternatives to inference.

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