Update Markdown

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

With no annotations, the description is expected to disclose behavioral traits. It covers the concurrency behavior well but omits details on required authentication, error cases (e.g., file not found), and side effects beyond the conflict scenario. The schema mentions 'Folders auto-created' but the description does not.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. No superfluous text.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral nuance (concurrency) but lacks information about return values, prerequisites, and error states beyond the conflict case. For a mutation tool, more detail on what happens upon success or failure would improve completeness.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds context on the concurrency semantics for 'expected_version' (mismatch -> CONFLICT), which is slightly more detailed than the schema's description. No additional meaning is added for other parameters.

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 'Replace the content of an existing .md file', specifying the verb 'replace' and the resource 'content of an existing .md file'. This clearly differentiates from the sibling tool 'append_to_markdown', which appends rather than replaces.

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 explicitly advises when to use the 'expected_version' parameter for optimistic concurrency and when to omit it for last-writer-wins. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'append_to_markdown' or 'save_markdown'.

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