Patch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the three edit modes and noting that append may target a section, but it does not explain failure conditions (e.g. what happens when 'find' is absent or ambiguous) or the resulting note state. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then enumerates modes in parentheses. No redundancy and nothing wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a mutation tool with six parameters the description omits error semantics (the 'find' must occur exactly once) and any routing against siblings, leaving moderate gaps.

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 67%, and the description maps its modes onto parameters (append, section, replace/find, set_meta frontmatter). This adds some meaning, but the mapping is loose and the description never clarifies the interplay between 'find' and 'replace'. It sits at the baseline for a mid-coverage schema.

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') and enumerates the three operating modes (append, replace exact text, set frontmatter), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the 'write' or 'capture' siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 phrase 'edit an existing note' implicitly signals this is for modifying rather than creating content, which loosely separates it from write/capture. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.

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