update_conversation_note

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the previous note text is retained in workspace Logs with editor identity, IP, and timestamp. This clarifies the audit trail and soft-replacement behavior. It does not contradict the annotations, which already cover readOnly, idempotent, and destructive hints.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the action and target; the second front-loads the important audit-retention behavior. Every sentence earns its place without repetition.

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 full schema coverage, present annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains replacement behavior and audit logging; the main remaining gap is explicit sibling routing, which is minor here.

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 all five parameters are fully documented in the schema, including text max length, noteId source, and authorName audit purpose. The description adds only high-level replacement context, not parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Replace the text of one existing note." This clearly implies an edit operation on an existing note and implicitly distinguishes it from add/list/delete siblings, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 phrase "one existing note" implies the tool is for editing an already-created note, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus add_conversation_note, delete_conversation_note, or list_conversation_notes. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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