edit_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool edits notes with various operations, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether edits are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Edit an existing markdown note') and lists operation types. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for operations).

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?

Given 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and operation types but misses parameter details, behavioral context, and usage guidelines. It's minimally adequate for a simple edit tool but has clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions operations (append, prepend, find_replace, replace_section) which partially explains the 'operation' parameter, but doesn't clarify other parameters like 'identifier', 'content', 'project', 'section', 'find_text', or 'expected_replacements'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.

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 clearly states the action ('Edit an existing markdown note') and resource ('note'), specifying the type of operations available (append, prepend, find_replace, replace_section). It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_note' (create) and 'delete_note' (remove), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'view_note' or 'read_note' in terms of when to edit versus read.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), when to choose specific operations, or when to use 'write_note' for new notes instead. The context is implied (editing existing notes), but lacks actionable usage rules.

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