Edit a Text Note

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — 'Replace' means full overwrite of the text rather than append or partial edit — but says nothing about failure modes (missing annotation, wrong annotation type) or what happens to the prior text.

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?

One declarative sentence front-loads the operation, followed by a single relevant example — nothing wasted. It is arguably too lean rather than too long, but structurally it is clean.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the remaining burden is small, but the description still leaves open what a text note is versus other annotation types and what happens if the id is invalid. Adequate as a minimum, not complete.

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 coverage is 50%: annotation_id is documented as coming from get_annotations, while 'text' carries only min/maxLength constraints with no meaning attached. The description's example ('Change the R1 LAN label to 10.1.1.0/24') illustrates the intent of the text parameter, but with half the schema undocumented this only reaches the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Replace the text of an existing note'), which separates it from add_text_note and delete_annotation among the siblings. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the word 'existing' plus 'replace' makes the operation unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'existing' suggests you need an annotation_id first, and the schema note points at get_annotations, but the description never says when to use this instead of add_text_note or delete_annotation. The example gives a flavor of intended use without routing rules.

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