update_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 clearly discloses the destructive overwrite behavior and even the exact parameter semantics, but it does not mention permissions, whether backups occur, or the return format. A 4 reflects strong disclosure of the core destructive trait with minor gaps.

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 sentences of prose plus a focused Args section. The destructive nature is front-loaded, and every line serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 two-parameter, destructive write tool with no annotations but an existing output schema, the description covers the operation, the destructive semantics, parameter usage, and the alternative tool. Nothing essential is missing for correct agent invocation.

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 provides an example for path ('decisions/my-decision.md') and explicitly states that content replaces the entire file, which is critical for correct invocation. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb (overwrite) and resource (note), and immediately differentiates from the sibling append_to_note by naming the destructive vs. additive behavior. An agent can distinguish update_note from append_to_note 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?

Explicitly states when to use (rewriting or restructuring) and when not to (adding content without losing existing text), naming the alternative (append_to_note). This is textbook when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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