Edit note

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

The description clearly explains the tool's two behavioral modes and what they achieve, going beyond the annotations which only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior. It does not mention edge cases like replace_all default or behavior when find is not found, but the main behavior is well communicated.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description explains the two use modes but omits details like what happens when find doesn't match, the non-idempotent nature, or that it modifies the file on disk. It is adequate but leaves gaps for error handling and idempotency.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the description still adds value by clarifying the relationship between parameters: pairing 'find' with 'replace' and 'section' with 'replace'. This semantic grouping is not present in the schema alone.

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 verb 'edit' and the resource 'existing note', and distinguishes two specific modes (find/replace and section replace). It is precise and sets the tool apart from siblings like create_note or delete_note.

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 explains when to use each mode: 'find'+'replace' for text edits, or 'section'+'replace' for rewriting heading content. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for frontmatter updates) nor provide direct comparison to sibling tools like update_frontmatter or toggle_task.

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