update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that content is replaced, which implies overwriting the original data, but it does not warn about irreversibility or the requirement that the note must already exist. This is adequate but not fully transparent for a destructive operation.

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 that states the operation, the target, and the content format. No redundant phrases 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the core behavior. It lacks explicit guidance on error cases or irreversible consequences, but given the simplicity and high schema coverage, it is largely complete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both 'path' and 'content'. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('existing note') with a clear scope: the entire content is replaced with new markdown. This distinguishes it from create_note and append_note without needing to inspect the schema.

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 description clearly implies when to use this tool: when the full content of an existing note must be overwritten. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the phrase 'entire content' and 'existing note' set the context apart from append_note and create_note.

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