replace_in_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'replace' (implying a write) and 'without replacing entire content' (targeted nature), but it does not disclose whether the note is modified in-place, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if no match is found, or that replaceAll defaults to false (only first occurrence). For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place. There is no redundant information or 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?

Despite a simple tool with fully documented parameters, the lack of any annotations means the description must cover behavioral essentials. It does not state that this is a mutating operation (beyond the verb), what the return value is, or important edge-case behavior like no-match or multiple occurrences. The description is too thin for a write tool operating on files.

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 input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, such as behavior of replaceAll or requirements for the path. It therefore does not exceed the baseline.

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+resource combination ('Find and replace text in a note') and clearly differentiates from siblings like read_note, update_note, and append_to_note by emphasizing targeted edits rather than full content replacement.

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?

The phrase 'Useful for making specific edits without replacing the entire content' implies a use case and distinguishes it from full-file update tools, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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