Edit note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers meaningful traits: "Edit an existing note in place" reveals mutation, "prepend lands after frontmatter" flags a placement nuance, find_replace's "fails if find is absent" discloses a concrete failure condition, and "subsections included" reveals destructive scope. It stops short of stating irreversibility or behavior when the path doesn't exist, but the disclosed traits go well beyond what the schema conveys.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact semicolon-separated mode breakdown where every parenthetical earns its place. Three sentences fully specify a four-mode editing tool without redundancy or filler.

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 6-parameter, 4-mode tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers mode semantics, parameter-mode relationships, a failure condition, and scoping nuances. Minor gaps remain — no explicit statement of what happens if the note doesn't exist, no success/return behavior, and no reversibility note — but the essentials for invoking the tool correctly are present.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantic value by mapping parameters to modes: find→replace pairs, content used by append/prepend/replace_section, and heading scoping replace_section. It also clarifies behavioral nuances the terse schema labels miss, such as "all occurrences" for find_replace and frontmatter placement for prepend.

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: "Edit an existing note in place," which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note, delete_note, move_note, and read_note. The four named modes (append, prepend, find_replace, replace_section) further specify exactly what operations are available, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's job.

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 gives clear within-tool mode guidance, such as find_replace "fails if find is absent" and replace_section swapping "subsections included," which helps an agent choose a mode. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer edit_note over siblings or when not to use it — that must be inferred from the tool name and the sibling list rather than stated.

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