edit_note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond by explaining the mechanism: the note is deleted and recreated ('it gets a NEW note ID and a new creation date'), backed up first, and attachment preservation/removal behavior. This adds substantial value beyond the annotation by revealing the underlying destructive mechanism and side effects the agent must account for.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized for a complex destructive tool. It opens with a front-loaded single-sentence purpose statement, then uses a warning section for the destructive behavior, and a separate paragraph for attachment handling. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive, backed-up, attachment-aware, new ID semantics), the description covers the essential behavioral contract comprehensively. It explains the return value ('Returns the new note's ID'), the backup path, the failure case (evicted attachment), and the standard workflow. The output schema exists, so return-format details aren't needed in the description.

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 completely carries the parameter meaning burden. The description explains 'markdown' semantics in detail: what must be preserved (attachment file:// lines) and how to remove attachments. It mentions title/folder are kept via description, and the title param exists with null default meaning 'keep as-is'. While it doesn't spell out every param's exact syntax, it compensates substantially for the 0% schema coverage.

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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Replace a note's body with new markdown, keeping its title and folder.' It uses a specific verb (replace) and identifies the resource (note body). It also distinguishes this from siblings by explicitly noting the markdown-based body replacement and title/folder preservation, contrasting with read_note 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 description provides explicit guidance: 'The normal flow is to read_note, edit that markdown, and pass it back here.' It clearly explains the when (editing existing note body) and the workflow (read, edit, pass back). It also gives actionable mechanics on attachments and the exception case for iCloud-evicted attachments.

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