update_note

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond basic CRUD: partial updates ('Only provided fields are changed') and the return behavior ('The updated note, or None if not found'). With no annotations provided, the description carries this burden effectively, though it omits details like handling of null values or permissions.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then Args, then Returns. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or filler. It is properly front-loaded.

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 simple CRUD tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return values, and it includes an output schema. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state how null values are handled for the optional fields (e.g., whether passing null clears the field or leaves it unchanged), which could affect behavior.

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 Args section explicitly explains each parameter (note_id, title, content, tags) and their optionality, which is essential since the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). This adds significant meaning beyond the structured schema, making it easy for the agent to construct valid calls.

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 'Update an existing note' which identifies the specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_note, get_note, and delete_note by focusing on modification.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('Update an existing note') and the partial-update semantics ('Only provided fields are changed'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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