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

Annotations mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds important behavioral detail: exactly what range of content gets replaced. This goes beyond the raw annotations by explaining the replacement boundary, which is essential for using the tool safely.

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 two sentences with no jargon or filler. It front-loads the main action, then immediately provides the critical scoping detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 full parameter schema and output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the core behavior and boundary logic, though it does not address edge cases such as what happens when the heading is not found or whether the heading itself remains intact.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the heading and level parameters by explaining that replacement extends to the next heading of the same or higher level—information not present in the parameter schema.

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 a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('content under a specific heading in an existing note'), and precisely defines the replacement boundary as 'from the matched heading to the next heading of same/higher level.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_note or append_to_note, which operate on entire notes.

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 use case is clearly implied: use this tool when you need to replace a specific section of an existing note without rewriting the whole note. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the targeting behavior is unmistakable.

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