Conditionally render a note's Markdown as rich text only when its current content matches the expected text, ensuring safe formatting without overwriting edits.
Render existing Markdown as rich text when its body exactly matches expected_text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes | ||
| expected_text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the exact-match guard and the format operation, but does not state what happens when the body does not match, whether the Markdown is overwritten, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
One sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and precondition are front-loaded. Every word 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?
For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the definition covers the key selection and invocation inputs. The main remaining gap is the mismatch/error behavior, which is implied by 'when' but not explicit.
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 has 0% property description coverage, and the description does add meaning: expected_text is the body text that must match, and note_id selects the existing note. However, it does not fully spell out note_id's role or the expected_text format beyond the match constraint.
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?
States a specific action ('Render existing Markdown as rich text') and an explicit precondition ('when its body exactly matches expected_text'). The exact-match guard distinguishes it from sibling format_rich_note, so the agent can tell which formatting tool is meant.
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 precondition gives a clear selection context: use this tool when the note body is expected to exactly equal expected_text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say what to do on mismatch, but the conditional is strong enough to guide the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.