Replace Ygdria note content

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: this is an optimistic-concurrency write keyed on a version from a prior get_note call. It stops short of stating what happens on a version mismatch or that all prior body content is lost beyond the word 'complete'.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, and the destructive 'complete body' scope is front-loaded. The trailing 'as If-Match' leans on HTTP-header jargon that a calling agent may have to decode, a minor structural cost.

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, four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the one thing an agent cannot guess: content is fully overwritten and gated by a version token. Missing details are secondary but real, such as conflict/mismatch handling and whether metadata or tags survive the replacement.

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 only 25%, with just 'version' documented as a legacy alias for expectedVersion. The description compensates for the weakest spot by explaining that this version value must come from a prior get_note call, which gives expectedVersion real meaning. noteId and content remain undocumented in both places.

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?

Specific verb 'Replace' plus a precise resource scope, 'the complete Markdown body', which implicitly separates it from the partial-mutation siblings (edit_content, append_content, replace_section). It does not name those siblings outright, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

'using the version from a prior get_note call as If-Match' establishes a real workflow prerequisite, implying get_note must precede this call. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance versus edit_content, append_content, or replace_section, which is the main decision an agent faces.

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