Edit note

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the whole note is overwritten, that bold/links/lists are destroyed, that line breaks become paragraphs, that editors see the change immediately, and that in-app undo does not cover it. This is precisely the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot convey; the destructiveHint=false annotation refers to the card surviving, and the description clarifies the nuance rather than contradicting it.

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 core action is stated in a single front-loaded sentence, followed by two dense sentences covering side effects and visibility. No filler, and each sentence carries a distinct behavioral fact.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers effects, irreversibility, collaboration visibility and scope. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens on invalid input (e.g., card_id pointing at a non-note card) or whether failure leaves the note untouched.

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%, so text, card_id and board_id are already documented in the schema, including where IDs come from. The description reinforces the paragraph-per-line behavior but adds no syntax, length limits or formatting rules beyond what the schema states, so it sits at 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?

"Replace the text of a note card" gives a specific verb (replace) plus resource (note card text), which is immediately distinguishable from add_note. It also states the scope boundary (only note cards, not to-do lists), so an agent can separate it from set_task_done without inspecting schemas.

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?

It supplies an explicit when-not clause ("Only note cards; to-do lists change with set_task_done") and names the alternative tool that handles the excluded case. That is exactly the routing information an agent needs when the two siblings look similar.

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