Update Note

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the behavior of updating by exact title and first-match semantics, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., timestamp changes), error conditions, or required permissions.

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 front-loaded sentences contain all necessary information without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema is provided; the description does not explain return value or success indicators. For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, more details on behavior (e.g., atomicity, concurrency) would be helpful.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about first-match behavior and the optional title replacement, but mostly restates schema info. No deep parameter guidance (e.g., format constraints).

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 the body of an existing note and optionally replaces the title, using a specific verb ('updates') and resource ('existing note'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note (creation) and delete_note (deletion).

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 when to use (to update a note) and notes a caveat about duplicate titles, but does not explicitly state when not to use or recommend alternatives (e.g., read_note for viewing). Missing contrast with siblings.

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