replace_note_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses preservation behaviors (keeps id, folder, creation date) and the refusal condition with force override. It does not mention irreversibility or error responses, but the core mutation behavior is reasonably transparent.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and preservation behavior. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Covers the operation, what is preserved, and the refusal condition. Lacks error responses or return values, but given no output schema and moderate complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of meaning for force (overrides refusal) beyond the schema's 'Proceed even if rich content would be lost', but adds no new semantics for note or markdown.

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 clearly it replaces a note's entire body with new Markdown, preserving id, folder, and creation date. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like append_to_note and create_note.

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?

Describes the replace use case explicitly and mentions a key condition (refuses if attachments/tables unless force is set). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over append_to_note or other alternatives, nor any exclusions beyond that.

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