Edit an existing note using its ID prefix, optionally update the markdown content from a file or set a new title. Requires confirm=true to apply changes.
改笔记（换正文重解析标签 / 仅改标题）。对应 CLI：note edit。参数：id*(笔记 id 前缀), file(新正文的 md 文件路径), title(新标题)。写操作须 confirm:true。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 笔记 id 前缀 | |
| file | No | 新正文的 md 文件路径 | |
| title | No | 新标题 | |
| confirm | No | 写操作必传 true（安全门） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does so responsibly: it flags that this is a write operation requiring confirm:true and notes that body edits trigger tag re-parsing. It could disclose more about overwrite behavior, but the core side-effect and safety information is present.
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 compact sentence front-loads the purpose, then packs CLI mapping, parameter meanings, and safety requirements with no filler. Every clause carries useful information.
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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, modes, parameter meaning, and confirmation. The main gap is not explicitly stating whether file and title are mutually exclusive or whether at least one of them must accompany id, but the mode phrasing makes this inferable.
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 the baseline is 3; the description adds value by mapping file to 'new body with tag reparse', title to 'only change title', and confirming the mandatory confirm:true safety gate. It still leaves id-prefix semantics mostly to the schema, but that is acceptable.
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 leads with a specific action and resource ('改笔记' – edit note) and names two concrete modes: replacing the body with tag re-parsing, or changing only the title. This clearly separates it from note-adding siblings like wb_note_add and read-only tools like wb_query.
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 gives clear context: use when an existing note needs its body or title modified, with explicit mode selection. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the edit-versus-add/query distinction is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.