Update an existing note by replacing its content with new text. Provide the note title and new content to overwrite the old body.
Replace the content of an existing note.
Args:
title: The title of the note to update.
content: The new body text (overwrites the old content).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that content 'overwrites the old content', which is critical destructive behavior. It does not mention error behavior for nonexistent notes, permission requirements, or idempotency, but the overwrite warning is meaningful and prevents an agent from assuming additive behavior.
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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the Args list is a compact structured format for parameters. Every sentence contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple update tool, the description covers the core behavior and both parameters. It does not discuss the case where the title does not exist or what the output contains, but an output schema exists and the overall context is small. A minor gap is the lack of explicit error or idempotency details, which prevents a perfect score.
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 does: 'title' is clearly the note identifier, and 'content' is the replacement body text with overwrite semantics. These descriptions go beyond the schema's raw 'string' type, giving an agent enough meaning to supply correct values.
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 states a specific action ('Replace') and resource ('existing note'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like add_note, read_note, or delete_note. The verb 'replace' unambiguously indicates an update operation, so an agent can tell what this tool does without inspecting the schema.
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 phrase 'existing note' implies this tool is used for modifying notes that already exist, and the overwrite semantics hint that it is not for creating new notes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, state when not to use it, or call out add_note for creating notes. The usage guidance is 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.