emacs_org_heading_update

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', which signals mutation, but it does not explain what happens to existing content when new_content is provided, whether append_content appends to the current content, what occurs if the heading text is not found, or whether changes are destructive and irreversible. The mention of 'properties' also overstates behavior not supported by 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 short and superficially concise, but it omits essential operational details and includes an unsupported 'properties' claim, so the one sentence does not fully earn its place. It is front-loaded with the action, but brevity comes at the cost of clarity about replace-versus-append behavior.

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 this is a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to allow an agent to invoke it confidently. It does not specify the effect of new_content versus append_content, error behavior for missing headings, or what the tool returns after success, all of which are important for a tool that modifies an existing org-mode heading.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little beyond restating 'title' and 'content' at a high level, and its reference to 'properties' is not backed by any schema parameter. Since schema coverage is 100%, the schema handles the parameter-documentation burden adequately.

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 clearly states the operation ('Update an existing heading') and names the alterable aspects (title, content, or properties), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like emacs_org_heading_add, emacs_org_heading_delete, and emacs_org_heading_move. However, it claims 'properties' can be updated while the input schema provides no property parameter, introducing some ambiguity about the tool's exact capabilities.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as heading_add, heading_delete, heading_move, or org_write. The phrase 'existing heading' weakly implies this is for modifying already-created headings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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