Replace Document With Markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'replace' but does not indicate that the operation is destructive, what happens to non-main content (e.g., embeds, metadata), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. While it could benefit from additional detail, it is not verbose and avoids tautology, so it earns a 4.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not cover the optional parameters, the effect of strict mode, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Only one of the four parameters (markdown) has a description in the schema (25% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain the optional workspaceId or the boolean strict parameter. The agent is left guessing about their purpose.

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 identifies the action (replace) and the resource (main note content of a document), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like append_markdown or create_doc_from_markdown, which would earn a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where replacement is preferred over appending or creating. The agent receives no decision-making support.

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