edit_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. It discloses that the tool 'Always overwrites the old file', which is a key behavioral trait (destructive operation). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response behavior, which are crucial for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (mutation with 3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the destructive nature but misses parameter explanations, usage context, and error handling. The output schema may help with return values, but the description itself lacks sufficient detail for safe and effective use.

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 mentions 'Markdown (.md) file' and 'content', which loosely relate to 'filename' and 'new_content' parameters, but doesn't explain the 'category' parameter or provide any format or constraint details. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit a Markdown (.md) file, updating its content.' It specifies the verb (edit/update), resource (Markdown file), and action (overwrites). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'rename_note' or 'create_note' beyond the edit/update focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance: 'Always overwrites the old file' implies a destructive update, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_note' or 'rename_note'. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context vague.

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