Rewrite a note in a task's journal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two important traits: the new body replaces the old one wholesale (destructive overwrite of the prior text) and a note cannot be emptied (a validation constraint). It omits what happens on an unknown note id, whether the rewrite requires the note to be yours, and whether the change is reversible.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the replacement and non-empty rules. The middle clause ('or one the person opened to agents, named by the id `read` shows beside it') is dense but carries real information.

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 an unannotated three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers ownership scope, whole-body replacement, and the non-empty rule — enough to call it correctly. Return behavior and permission-failure handling are the remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the `read` with `journal` provenance for `note` and the 'Tisty language' constraint on `body`. The description largely restates the same id-source hint, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Rewrite a note in the journal of a task') and scopes it to notes the agent filed or the person opened to agents, which separates it from reword_step. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the distinction is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives an implicit precondition (only notes you filed or that were opened to agents) rather than a when-to-use rule. It does not contrast with `note`, reword_step, or doc-editing siblings, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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