notes_update_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that fields can be set and that body supports plain text or HTML, but it does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved, what permissions are required, whether the update is reversible, or what happens if note_id does not exist. This is a mutation tool, so the missing behavioral detail is significant.

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 short sentences, no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. The description earns its length: every sentence adds operational information.

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 tool is relatively simple and the description covers the core operation, target key, and updatable fields. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of alias guidance, body_format defaults, and side-effect disclosure leaves noticeable gaps; adequate but not 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains note_id as the target, title and body as the settable fields, and body as supporting plain text or HTML. However, it never names body_format explicitly or states its default behavior when omitted, leaving an agent to infer the connection between 'Body supports plain text or HTML' and the enum parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Update'), resource ('existing note'), and identifying key ('note_id'), then lists the fields that can be changed (title, body). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, append, move, and delete without requiring the agent to inspect each one.

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 context is clear: use this when modifying an existing note by its ID. However, it never states when not to use it, nor does it point to alternatives such as notes_append_to_note for adding content or notes_get_note for reading. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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