update-note

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the auth scope sales:write and the PATCH method, but does not clarify whether the update is partial or full, what happens on invalid ids, or any response/error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action, endpoint, and required scope are stated in one sentence. It has no filler, though it omits behavioral context that could be added without making the definition bloated.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition lacks expected context such as which fields are patchable, when to invoke it, and success/failure behavior. The endpoint and scope are helpful but do not fully equip an agent to call this tool correctly.

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?

Only one of three parameters has a schema description (33% coverage), and the description does not compensate. The body and pinned fields are never explained beyond their names, and no default or update semantics are provided.

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 ('a sales note'), identifies the HTTP method and path, and is unambiguous against sibling tools like create-note, get-note, and delete-note. The 'sales note' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from update tools in other domains.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use update-note versus create-note, get-note, or delete-note. Prerequisites such as the note already existing are also not stated, leaving the agent to infer context from the word 'Update' alone.

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