notes_edit

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

The description discloses critical behavior beyond annotations: the exact/uniqueness match requirement, replace_all option, atomic all-or-nothing application ('all edits apply together or none do'), failure mode ('a failed match changes nothing'), and return value ('unified diff... plus the new content_hash'). These add significant context not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the action, second details constraints and atomicity, third gives use case, alternatives, and output. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states the return value (diff + content_hash). It covers use case, failure behavior, atomicity, and sibling relationships. The expect_hash parameter is documented in the schema, so not repeating it in the description is acceptable. The tool is complex but the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke it.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including exact matching, whitespace sensitivity, uniqueness, replace_all, and expect_hash. The description adds little beyond the schema, mostly restating atomicity and uniqueness. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Edit an existing note in place with exact search/replace, by id' and differentiates it from notes_update ('instead of resending its whole body') and notes_append ('only ever adds'). It names the specific method and resource, making it unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'This is the tool for correcting or restructuring part of a long note' and contrasts with alternatives: 'notes_append only ever adds, and notes_update replaces the whole body.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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