replace-note-enml

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no information about behavioral traits such as destructiveness, authorization needs, or side effects. The agent cannot determine if this operation is safe or requires confirmation (though the schema has a 'confirm' parameter).

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 extremely short, but it is not concise in a helpful way. It is under-specified, providing no useful information. Critical details are missing, so it does not earn 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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. A tool for replacing note content should explain the format of content, the role of 'confirm', and how this differs from other modification tools. None of this is present.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meanings, such as what 'content' or 'bodyOnly' do. The agent has no help understanding how to set parameters.

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 '替ENML' is cryptic and does not clarify what the tool does. It likely means 'replace ENML' but even that is not explained. It fails to state the verb and resource clearly, and does not differentiate from siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not compare to 'replace-super-note-block' or 'update-super-note'. No context or exclusions provided.

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