Update Note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently communicates that the operation overwrites the entire content, which implies destructiveness. However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether the note must exist, or any side effects beyond replacement, leaving some behavioral context under-specified.

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 a single sentence that immediately states the core action and object. It is free of filler, front-loaded with the key verb 'Replace', and perfectly sized for a tool with only two parameters.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema fully documents both parameters, and the action is clear. The description is sufficient for selection and invocation in most cases. Its main shortfall is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling mutation tools, but this does not critically undermine completeness given the simplicity.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the parameters 'path' and 'content' are already well-documented. The description adds no additional semantic meaning about parameter format or usage beyond what the schema provides, so a 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Replace' with a precise resource 'the entire content of an existing note in the Obsidian vault'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_to_note or create_note, which have different actions.

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 description contains no explicit guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as append_to_note or create_note. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist) or any exclusions, leaving usage only implied by the verb 'replace'.

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