note の下書きを更新

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds real value on top: the update is a wholesale replacement (丸ごと置き換える), not a patch, and it will not publish — useful specifics about what is destroyed and what side effect is deliberately absent. Remaining gaps (auth requirements, error behavior) are minor given annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then the scope constraint, then the non-publish guarantee. No filler and nothing an agent must scan past.

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 seven-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action, the destructive full-replacement semantics, and the eligibility constraint; dry_run return behavior is documented in the schema. It could still say more about failure modes or image handling, but nothing critical is missing.

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% and all seven parameters (including the markdown/markdown_path mutual exclusion and dry_run semantics) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail of its own, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource: replaces an existing draft's title and body wholesale with the given Markdown. It also bounds the scope by noting published articles cannot be updated and that only draft-list IDs are accepted, which cleanly separates it from create_draft/list_drafts and from any publish step. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the 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 a clear when-not condition (公開済みの記事は更新できない, only IDs present in the draft list are accepted) and clarifies it will not publish. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative (e.g. create_draft for new drafts or a publish action), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than explicit.

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