patch_noteReplace or append content under a specified heading in a markdown note. This enables targeted edits to specific sections while preserving the rest of the note.
Replace (or append to) the section under a heading. Surgical edits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | replace | |
| content | Yes | ||
| heading | Yes | ||
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the main mutation behavior (replace or append) and the scoped target ('section under a heading,' 'surgical'). However, it omits important traits like behavior when the heading is missing, whether other sections are preserved, and the exact effect of append mode.
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?
The description is remarkably concise: two short sentences with the primary operation front-loaded and 'Surgical edits' adding useful context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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?
There is an output schema, so explaining return values is not necessary, but the absence of annotations and a terse description leaves ambiguity about edge cases such as missing headings and append semantics. The description is sufficient for a straightforward invocation but not fully complete.
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%, and the description adds some meaning by linking heading to the section, content to the replacement text, and mode to replace/append. It does not explain note_id or specify allowed mode values or content formatting, so compensation is only partial.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Replace (or append to) the section under a heading.' 'Surgical edits' hints at precision but does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like update_note or append_note, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as append_note or update_note. 'Surgical edits' is a characterization of the behavior, not an explicit condition, exclusion, or pointer to a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.