vault_edit_note

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the commit side effect, the atomic failure mode ('Fails, without writing'), and the exact uniqueness condition that triggers failure. This is valuable behavioral information beyond the schema.

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?

A single dense sentence conveys the operation, constraints, failure mode, and remediation without wasted words. The most important behavioral constraint, uniqueness and no-partial-write, is front-loaded.

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 edit tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly: it knows what the tool edits, when it fails, and how to recover. The schema covers parameter details, and the description covers behavior and error handling.

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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic guidance on old_text: it must be unique and can be expanded with more context if the initial attempt fails. This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Replaces ONE exact passage of an existing note'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_write_note (writing a whole note) and read/list tools, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to replace one exact passage in an existing note. The description does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it, but it does provide actionable guidance on how to resolve ambiguity by sending more context in old_text.

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