update_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explicitly discloses that the old body is overwritten (destructive) and that the title is preserved unless a new one is provided. It does not mention the behavioral caveats of the attach and true_styles parameters, but those are well-documented in the schema.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the core action and key side effects in four short sentences. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 description gives a solid high-level overview covering the destructive nature and title behavior, but it omits mention of optional behaviors like attachments or true paragraph styles. However, the schema provides those details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent that reads the schema.

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 100%, so parameters are fully described. The description only reiterates that the body is Markdown, which the schema already states. It adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clear resource ('a note's body'), immediately distinguishing it from append_note or create_note. It also states the destructive side effect, which gives a unique purpose signature.

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?

It clearly conveys when to use this tool: to overwrite a note's body while optionally changing the title. It mentions Markdown compatibility with create_note, but does not explicitly contrast with append_note or list exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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