Set a note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by explaining that notes 'overwrite wholesale,' clarifying exactly what gets destroyed, plus a read-before-append workflow hint.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the replacement semantics are front-loaded before the append alternative. Every clause earns its place.

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 2-param mutation tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts an agent needs (wholesale replacement, read-first workflow). Nothing critical is missing, though idempotency is only implied via annotations rather than stated.

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 100%, so both `id` and `note` are already documented in the schema. The description only restates 'by its id' and 'free text,' adding no syntax or format detail beyond structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Replace) and resource (the note attached to an entity by its id), making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_note, which reads rather than overwrites.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: read the existing note first with `get_note` if the intent is to append, which is a concrete when-to-use alternative. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool, so it falls just below the top score.

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