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

The description discloses that the tool replaces the body, is idempotent, and supports an optional expected revision, which adds behavioral context beyond the raw annotations. However, it does not explain what happens on a revision mismatch, whether the note must already exist, or the consequences of replacing the body. The idempotency hint is already in annotations, so the description adds only moderate value here.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action plus key properties are front-loaded. The phrase 'from Markdown' is slightly awkward and 'exact' is ambiguous, which prevents a perfect score, but it remains appropriately concise.

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 five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It fails to clarify idempotency semantics, expectedRevision mismatch behavior, whether the note must exist, or when to prefer this over sibling tools. The output schema may cover return values, but substantial invocation context is still missing.

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%, and the description only partially compensates. It mentions Markdown and expected revision but does not explain the roles of workspaceId, noteId, or idempotencyKey, nor how expectedRevision behaves when omitted or mismatched. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not carry the load needed for such low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Replace' and names the resource 'the shared body of an exact collaboration note,' which clearly identifies the operation. It adds detail beyond the title by mentioning idempotency and expected revision, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like upsert_note or update_public_page.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upsert_note or update_public_page. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and resource type.

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