update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value: it discloses the destructive overwrite semantics of 'text', and the precedence rule that 'append_text' is ignored when 'text' is supplied. However it never states that unlisted fields are left unchanged (partial vs. full update), nor anything about permissions or reversibility of visibility/theme changes.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact per-argument list with no filler. Slightly list-heavy, but every line maps to a distinct parameter, so nothing is wasted.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the definition covers every argument and its semantics. The remaining gap is the partial-update contract — whether omitted fields are preserved — which an agent would want confirmed before calling.

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 compensate — and it documents all six parameters, including the note_id UUID format, the overwrite-vs-append interaction, the enumerated theme values, and the True/False meaning of the two boolean flags. This is meaning the schema itself does not provide.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing note') and enumerates exactly which attributes can be changed (text, appended lines, theme, visibility). The word 'existing' plus the sibling set (create_note, get_note) makes the scope unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is implied — you need a note_id, presumably obtained from list_notes/get_note/search_notes — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. Nothing misleading, but nothing that routes the agent among siblings either.

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