Replace Document With Markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a destructive action (replacing content) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or impact on other document parts like blocks or comments. The lack of details on irreversible changes or rate limits reduces transparency.

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 that efficiently states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters or outcomes) without being overly verbose.

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?

With no output schema, 4 parameters, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for complete understanding. It does not clarify the role of workspaceId (optional), the effect of strict, or the return value. Given the large number of sibling tools, the description lacks contextual guidance for selection.

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 coverage is only 25% (only markdown has a description). The description does not explain workspaceId, docId, or the strict parameter beyond what the schema states. It merely echoes the markdown parameter's purpose without adding value.

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 action (replace), the target (main note content of a document), and the input (markdown content). It distinguishes from siblings like append_markdown or update_doc_title by specifying replacement of main content.

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 implies usage for replacing markdown content but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., append_markdown, create_doc). No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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