update_note

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

The description discloses that the tool 'Replace[s]' the note, which implies destructive overwriting, and mentions the concurrency safety mechanism. However, it does not explain what happens if the expected hash does not match, whether the note must exist, or any failure modes. With only openWorldHint=false as an annotation, the description carries the burden but provides only partial transparency.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that immediately states the core action and a key optional feature. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description is a bit too brief. It covers the main function and a distinct feature, but it omits information about error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., existing file), and behavior on hash mismatch. In the context of sibling tools, it does enough to separate itself but leaves gaps for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to expectedHash by linking it to concurrency safety, and 'Replace' implies content is the full replacement. However, it does not elaborate on vault (the container) or path (the location), although these are self-evident from their names. The description provides some added value but not comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb 'Replace' with a clear resource 'Markdown note', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_note, append_note, and move_note. The mention of an optional SHA-256 hash for concurrency safety further specifies the tool's unique scope.

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 implies usage for replacing a note when concurrency safety is desired, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_note or append_note. No exclusions or alternative tools are named, leaving the usage context somewhat implied rather than explicit.

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