Replace in Note

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

Even though annotations already indicate a destructive, non-idempotent mutation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: YAML formatting may be normalized to block style, only the body is searched, replacement defaults to first occurrence only, there is no regex, Obsidian Flavored Markdown is interpreted with no escaping, and error cases are enumerated. This goes well beyond what annotations convey.

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 long but meticulously structured with sections for usage, parameters, errors, and syntax, and the core behavior and example are front-loaded. Every sentence carries operational or routing information; nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return value (confirmation with replacement count). It also covers failure modes, behavior with hidden paths, concurrency, and Obsidian syntax implications. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this destructive tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers all four parameters with high-quality descriptions, so the bar is the extra meaning. The description adds value by explaining that old_text and new_text together determine edit versus deletion, advising contextual uniqueness for old_text, and framing replace_all_occurrences as a safety default versus deliberate bulk rename. This is more than baseline but somewhat duplicative of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find and replace text in a markdown note's body.' It immediately bounds the scope ('Operates on the body only') and distinguishes the tool from sibling span-deletion/replacement tools, so an agent knows exactly what this tool is and is not.

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 has an explicit 'When to use' section that names targeted single-location edits and gives concrete alternatives with rationale: vault_delete_span for large multi-line deletions, vault_replace_span for anchor-based replacement, and vault_patch_note for relocating content. It also routes property edits to vault_update_properties or vault_write_note. This fully satisfies the when-to-use versus when-not-to-use requirement.

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