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 discloses that it is destructive ('Anything not in `body` is gone'), that the first line becomes the title, and that it refuses on attachments/checklists. It also explains the technical limitation. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 three brief paragraphs, each serving a distinct purpose: core action, caveat, and restriction. No unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 destructive replacement tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what happens to the data, and when it will not work. An agent would have sufficient understanding to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema for body and note_id; for replace_attachments, the schema already explains when to set it. The description's mention of refusal is behavioral, not parameter-specific. So it stays at 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?

The description opens with 'Replace a note's entire body,' a specific verb and resource. It explicitly contrasts with 'edit' and states it's a whole-note replacement, distinguishing it from append_to_note and other siblings.

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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Read the note with get_note first unless you are deliberately starting over.' It also states the refusal condition for attachments/checklists, which guides when not to use it. The whole-note vs edit contrast implies when to choose this over append_to_note.

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