Update Note

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait—'optimistic mod-timestamp conflict detection'—which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It alerts the agent to a concurrency mechanism, though it does not specify what happens on conflict or other side effects.

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, focused sentence that leads with the action and includes the key mechanism. There is no wasted wording; every part contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the essence but leaves gaps: no mention of return values, error handling on conflict, or prerequisites like note existence. It does not explain the meaning of 'mod-timestamp' fully, which is central to usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains that 'fields or tags' are updatable and that 'expectedModTimestamp' relates to conflict detection, but it does not clarify the structure of fields (object) or tags (array) beyond schema types, nor explain profileId/noteId. Partial compensation.

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 the tool's function: 'Update note fields or tags' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_note and delete_note by focusing on modification, and highlights the unique conflict-detection mechanism.

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 implies usage for updating existing notes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_note (for creating) or delete_note (for removal). No exclusions or explicit context are provided, leaving usage somewhat inferred.

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