Update Note Section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses atomic failure semantics ('Fails with no write'), the uniqueness constraint, both failure triggers, and the recovery path. This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded and failure behavior second. No filler, though a lead sentence naming the tool's uniqueness constraint could make it even more scannable.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. The description covers purpose, failure modes, and recovery, which is sufficient for a 3-param mutating tool. Minor gap around deletion semantics aside, 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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains old_str semantics ('exact, unique substring') and that new_str replaces it, implying note_id selects the note. It doesn't spell out that empty new_str should be used for pure deletion, leaving a small gap.

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 ('Replace an exact, unique substring within a note's body') and delimits scope ('without touching the rest of the note'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings append_note_section and update_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?

Explains failure conditions and points to get_note as the remedy when old_str is non-unique, effectively routing to the right sibling. It doesn't state when to prefer update_note vs append_note_section, but the context is clear enough.

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