Replace a note's body

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key destructive-scope fact: the entire body is overwritten while frontmatter is preserved. That is exactly the trait an agent needs to avoid accidental data loss. It stops short of stating reversibility, confirmation behavior, or error cases, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core operation and its constraint front-loaded ahead of the routing advice. Every clause 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?

For a simple two-parameter, fully schema-documented tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, its scope, and its sibling routing. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on reversibility or return behavior, which is minor here.

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 100%, so both 'ref' and 'body' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema (e.g., what 'markdown body' accepts), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Rewrite a note's entire body') and immediately scopes it with '(frontmatter preserved)', which is the exact distinction that matters. It contrasts cleanly with the append_note sibling, which shares the resource but not the operation.

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?

Names the alternative tool explicitly ('Prefer append_note for additions') and gives the precise condition that selects this one ('only for deliberate rewrites/reorganizations'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present, so no inference is required.

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