Patch note section

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description elaborates by stating the heading line and non-target sections are preserved, prior history is stored exactly, and writes are atomic. It also explains the expected_hash CAS check, adding significant behavioral context.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes meaningful operational detail without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the key operational guarantees (atomicity, history preservation, CAS) and what is preserved, which is sufficient given the presence of an output schema. It omits edge cases like hash mismatch behavior, but overall is complete enough for a tool of this scope.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates for expected_hash (explains its CAS role) and indirectly for heading and new_content by describing the replacement action. It does not mention heading_level or rel_path, but these are relatively clear from context.

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The description uses specific verbs ('rewrite', 'replace') and clearly identifies the resource ('an outdated section in place', 'content under one existing Markdown heading'). It differentiates from siblings by noting this is for existing notes/sections, not new ones.

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?

It states the primary use case: 'rewrite an outdated section in place when the topic already has a note.' This gives a clear context and implies avoiding use for new notes, though it does not explicitly name alternate tools or exclusions.

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