ustx_edit_notes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose key behaviors: that unspecified fields are left unchanged (all NoteEdit fields default to null), whether the file is written to disk or mutated in memory, what happens with an out-of-range index, or whether lyric edits depend on a track singer.

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 compact bilingual sentences with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical field list overlaps with schema documentation but earns its place as a quick capability scan.

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 a nested edits array, no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented top-level parameters, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell how to address a part, where indices come from, or what a successful edit returns.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0% — 'path', 'part', and 'edits' have no descriptions at all, and the description does not explain them either (e.g., that 'part' is a zero-based part index). It does recover some ground by listing the editable note fields, which help frame the 'edits' array even though the nested NoteEdit properties are already documented in the schema.

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 ('edit notes by index in a .ustx file') and enumerates the editable attributes, which cleanly separates it from the add/delete/list siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or stating that notes must already exist, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over ustx_add_notes, ustx_delete_notes, or ustx_list_notes, nor on how to obtain the note indices it requires. The only usage hint is the word 'by index', which leaves the discovery workflow to inference.

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