update_note_section

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does so substantially by disclosing the refusal behavior for human-edited pages unless force:true is set – a non-obvious and important guard. It does not describe destruction/overwrite details or error responses, but the core guard is 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 concise sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the critical guard condition is stated immediately in the second sentence, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin: it does not state what happens when the tool declines (e.g., error vs. no-op), does not explain how to identify a human-edited page, and doesn't clarify interpretation of the failure. It is adequate for basic invocation but not complete for all reasonable queries.

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 text must compensate for the schema's bare parameter definitions. The description meaningfully clarifies section, new_content, and force (indirectly), but slug is left unexplained, no value formats are given, and no example shows the full call signature.

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 uses a specific verb ('Replace') and states precisely what is replaced (content under a section heading on an existing page). The phrase 'on an existing page' clearly differentiates it from create/append operations, including such sibling tools as append_to_page 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?

The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit: it tells how the operation behaves, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over append_to_page, create_note, or other editing tools, and does not give exclusion cases. The safety guard is a behavioral clue, not full when-to-use guidance.

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