Precisely edit Ygdria note content

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the semantics behind that — edits are atomic, targets must match exactly, and dryRun exists as a safe preview. It omits failure-mode detail (what happens when a match count differs from expectedMatches or version is stale), which would complete the picture.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core mechanism front-loaded and the preview option trailing. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and 40% schema coverage, the description covers mechanism and preview but not concurrency (expectedVersion), match-ambiguity resolution, or what the caller gets back. Adequate to invoke, not complete enough to invoke confidently.

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 40%; the description covers oldText/newText and clarifies dryRun's purpose beyond its bare default. It says nothing about noteId, expectedVersion/version conflict handling, or expectedMatches, leaving half the parameters reliant on thin schema text.

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 and mechanism: 'atomic literal oldText/newText edits' to a note. It implicitly distinguishes itself from whole-content siblings (replace_content, append_content, replace_section) by emphasizing literal find/replace, but never names them, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 a prerequisite ('read earlier with get_note') and a preview path ('use dryRun to preview'), which is real guidance. It does not state when to choose this over replace_content or replace_section, nor when dryRun is mandatory before a destructive edit.

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