Replace a report's notes

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, but the description still adds materially non-obvious behavior: replace-not-append semantics, atomic rejection on unknown @ references versus tolerant handling of unknown #report links, where warnings appear, and the 'Local only' constraint. It does not contradict any annotation — 'Local only' is consistent with openWorldHint=false.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the destructive semantics come first, followed by reference rules, then constraints. The only wasted sentence is the explicit return-shape listing, which duplicates the existing output schema and could be dropped.

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?

Covers what an agent needs before a destructive overwrite: read first, what counts as a valid reference, atomicity on failure, and local-only scope. With an output schema present, the return-value recap is redundant but not misleading, and no call-critical gap remains.

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 100%, and the schema already documents id and notes including @i1/@d1/@label syntax, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond that: the @ must match media attached to the report, `#12` links another report, and invalid link handling is explained — but it never clarifies `label` resolution or whether `id` accepts anything other than the list_reports form.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: "Overwrite a bug report's notes with new text", then distinguishes the operation from its sibling by naming get_report for reading. The example use cases (diagnosis, repro steps, fix changes) pin down intent without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to get_report before calling and explains why (previous notes are replaced, not appended). It also states the consequence of a bad @ reference (rejected, nothing saved) versus a bad #report link (kept, surfaced in warnings), which is prescriptive guidance rather than bare description.

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