Update a journal note

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable context: the body is replaced whole (an easy-to-miss destructive semantic), OAuth sign-in with a LuxAlgo account is required, and the updated note is returned. It stops short of rate limits or error handling, but the key mutation caveat is disclosed.

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 with the replacement-destroys-text warning front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information (targeting, replacement semantics, sibling exclusion, auth).

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers targeting, replacement semantics, the sibling alternative, the auth prerequisite, and what is returned. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so noteId, body, and date are already documented, including that body is the full new text and date moves the note in the journal timezone. The description reinforces but does not extend this beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (replace/move) and resource (day note) plus the identifier needed to target it. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from journal_update_trade and implicitly from journal_write_note, so an agent can route correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives the provenance of noteId (journal_get_day or journal_search_notes), names the excluded case (trade notes go to journal_update_trade), and instructs append users to read the current text first. When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all covered.

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