Update Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Replace' indicates the note's existing content is overwritten, but it does not mention whether the note must already exist, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects might occur.

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 entire description is one focused sentence with no filler, and the core action 'Replace' is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter update with an output schema, the core call shape is adequately described. However, absent annotations and explicit usage guidance, an agent gets little help on failure behavior or choosing this over patch_note and append_note.

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 compensate by explaining the parameters. It maps note_id to the identifier and content to the replacement text, but adds no detail about format, length, or behavior beyond the schema's raw string types.

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'), a concrete resource ('a note's content'), and an identifier method ('by id'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like patch_note or append_note, so it misses the strongest level of 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?

The word 'replace' implies this tool is for full content overwrite rather than incremental changes, which gives a weak usage signal alongside patch_note and append_note. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites.

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