update_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses partial updates ('Only the provided fields change'), re-sorting side effects, the need to use fresh indices, a return snapshot, and the one-undo-step behavior. This is highly transparent.

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 concise: three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition or fluff.

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?

Covers key operational caveats (re-sort, undo, snapshot) and orients the user to get_notes. It does not specify the return snapshot structure, but the absence of an output schema and the description's mention of the snapshot make it sufficiently complete for a tool with rich schema documentation.

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 schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning, only reinforcing that indices come from get_notes and that moving notes can re-sort the group. Meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('existing notes'), and specifies the indexing method ('current onset-order index'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like insert_notes and delete_notes by targeting existing notes for modification.

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?

Provides clear context: notes are addressed by indices from get_notes, and users are instructed to use the returned snapshot for follow-up edits. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context strongly implies it.

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