edit_notes

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

Annotations already establish readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral fact beyond them: edits target notes by id and 'keep their ids,' which is exactly the identity-preservation detail that makes idempotency meaningful here.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the edit shape, then a compact example, then the alternative tool. Every sentence carries information; 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and informative annotations, the description covers what is editable, how to format edits, the required id source, and the sibling alternative. The only real omission is the meaning of slot/arrangement_clip, which an agent needs to target the right clip.

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 carry the load. It does this excellently for edits (required note_id plus the full list of editable fields and a concrete example), but says nothing about the slot or arrangement_clip parameters, leaving half the interface undocumented.

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+resource (change existing notes) with an explicit scoping key (note_id from get_notes) and pins down that ids are preserved. The agent can distinguish this from write_notes (creates) and transform_notes (relative/mass changes) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives the source of the required identifier (from get_notes) and names an explicit alternative with its condition: 'For relative changes on many notes use transform_notes.' Clear routing guidance, though it doesn't state what happens if a note_id doesn't exist or when slot/arrangement_clip should be used.

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