Edit note content in a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: case-insensitive matching, three distinct outcome branches (single match replaces in place, zero matches errors, multiple matches returns numbered previews requiring a retry). It omits whether the edit is reversible/undoable and whether all in-note occurrences are replaced when only one location matches, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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-loads what the tool does and where it searches, then walks through match outcomes in the order an agent would encounter them. No filler sentences, and the retry instruction is placed exactly where the multi-match behavior is described.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers search scope, matching semantics, and all outcome paths well enough to invoke correctly. What is missing is safety context (reversibility, permissions, whether the returned previews are actionable before confirmation) and any hint of the success payload shape.

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 the four parameters are already documented, including the day format variants and case-insensitivity of old_text. The description only reinforces the day filter's purpose and the substring nature of old_text, adding little beyond structured data.

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 and resource ('Edits note content in a Wanderlog trip by finding and replacing a substring') and immediately delimits scope to freestanding notes, place annotations, and checklist titles/items. This clearly separates it from wanderlog_add_note, wanderlog_remove_note, and wanderlog_edit_journal without the agent needing to open 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 concrete usage guidance: use a substring find/replace, narrow with the optional 'day' filter, and call again with a more specific substring when multiple matches come back. It does not explicitly say when to prefer a different sibling (e.g., remove_note or add_note) or whether whole-note rewriting is possible, but the operating context is clear.

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