Modify an existing note by ID, changing its title, custom fields, or Markdown content to keep Fastidious AI notes accurate.
Update an existing note
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the note to update | |
| title | No | New title for the note | |
| fields | No | Custom fields to update | |
| content | No | New content in Markdown format |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, it omits permissions required, whether changes are reversible, whether it is a partial or full update, and what the response looks like. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple statement, though given the tool's 4 parameters and mutation nature, it may be too terse to be optimally structured.
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?
The schema fully covers parameter semantics, but the description omits behavioral context such as partial update behavior, permissions, and response format, and there are no annotations or output schema. For a 4-parameter mutation tool, more context would be beneficial, though the complete schema mitigates some 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (id, title, fields, content) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('note'), making it clear this modifies an existing note rather than creating or deleting one. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_collection or explain when to use it versus create_note. Clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies the note must already exist but does not mention that create_note is for new notes or get_note for reading. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.