Update note

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, not destructive), so the description's job is to add mutation semantics. It does: it discloses the at-least-one-field requirement (a constraint the schema does not enforce, since only id is required) and that tags are replaced wholesale rather than merged. It could still state explicitly that omitted fields are preserved.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the invocation precondition, then the one non-obvious field behavior. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a four-parameter, non-destructive update tool with a fully documented schema and safety annotations, only the return behavior is unaddressed (e.g., whether the updated note is echoed back). No output schema exists, so a brief return-value note would have made it 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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, including 'New tags (replaces all existing tags)'. The description's note about tag replacement therefore restates schema content rather than adding to it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Edit') and resource ('existing note'), making it immediately distinguishable from add_note, delete_note and get_note by their own verbs. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the intent is 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?

'Provide the id and at least one of title, content or tags' gives a concrete precondition for invocation, which is the key usage rule for a partial-update tool. It stops short of stating exclusions such as when to prefer add_note vs update_note for a missing id, but no alternatives are needed for a simple CRUD edit.

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