update_note

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses that content replacement is due to E2E encryption, that at least one field must be provided, and that the tool returns updated note data. It could mention if updates are partial or full, but it does state 'replaces entire content' for content. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, very concise. The first sentence establishes purpose and platform, the second lists parameters and constraints. No wasted words.

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 tool has 5 parameters (1 required, 4 optional) and an output schema exists, the description covers all needed context: required ID, optional fields with explanations, format constraints, and minimum requirement. No gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains note_id as UUID, name, content with encryption note, notebook_id with purpose (move note), and date_on with format (YYYY-MM-DD). It also adds the constraint that at least one field is required.

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 action ('Update an existing note'), the resource ('note'), and the context ('in LunaTask'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_note or delete_note by specifying 'update' and requiring an existing note_id.

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 gives usage prerequisites: requires note_id and at least one optional field. It lists optional fields with a brief purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., use create_note if note doesn't exist), but the context is clear enough.

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