write_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation overwrites/destroys the existing note content, which is the key destructive trait. It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or error behavior, but the most important behavioral signal is clear.

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 one short sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 simple two-string-parameter write operation with an output schema, this description is largely sufficient. It states the destructive action and the existence requirement, though it could add a pointer to alternatives or behavior for invalid paths to be fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not name path or body. However, 'le contenu d'une note existante' maps naturally to body as the new content and path as the existing note identifier, so the agent can infer the mapping from context and self-explanatory parameter names.

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 ('écrase' = overwrites) and a precise resource ('le contenu d'une note existante'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from create_note, append_to_note, prepend_to_note, and other note operations.

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 'une note existante' establishes that the tool is for existing notes only, implying it should not be used for creation. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as create_note or append_to_note, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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