patch_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'insert or replace' but never states what is destroyed by a replace, how the heading is matched, what happens if the heading is absent, or whether the operation requires the file to be open. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than one clause: the heading-matching rule, replace-vs-insert consequences, and failure behavior are all unaddressed. The schema covers parameter formats but not the operation's semantics.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about heading matching or boundary semantics beyond what the schema fields state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('insert or replace content relative to a heading in a note') that an agent can act on. It implicitly separates itself from append_to_note by being heading-relative, but it never names the near-identical sibling patch_active_note or explains that this one targets an explicit path.

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?

'Useful for updating specific sections' implies the usage context but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives. With siblings like append_to_note and patch_active_note, the agent must infer which to pick from the schema alone.

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