Update Note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this modifies content. The description adds that it can append, prepend, or update tasks, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether changes are reversible, whether property operations overwrite or merge, or whether task updates target lines/refs. With only a broad destructive hint, the description provides some behavioral context but leaves important details unclear.

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 a single, compact sentence listing the three primary operations. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No wasted text or repetition of schema data.

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's complexity (supports multiple operation types) and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents return values), the description covers the main operation categories but lacks explicit guidance on when to use which operation mode, prerequisites like needing an existing note, and what happens if both append and prepend are provided. The annotations cover destructive intent but not details like whether file/path are mutually required. It is adequate but not highly 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage and clarifies param meanings (e.g., 'file' as link-resolved name, 'path' as vault-relative). The description adds semantic grouping: append/prepend content vs. property changes vs. task updates, which helps the agent understand the high-level intent behind the parameters. It does not fully explain the task object's ref/status/line semantics, but the schema's property descriptions plus the overview in the description are adequate for a baseline above 3.

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 'Append/prepend content, change properties, or update a task in a note' clearly identifies the verb (append/prepend/update) and the resource (note), and lists specific operations. It distinguishes itself from read_note and create_note, though the sibling tools like manage_tasks and organize_note overlap somewhat with the 'update a task' and 'change properties' functions, so it isn't fully explicit about boundaries.

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 usage for modifying existing notes (append/prepend/properties/task updates), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_tasks (for task-specific updates) or organize_note (for reorganization). There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of the file/path requirements for targeting an existing note.

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