patch_note_tool

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that dry_run=True previews without writing and returns {preview, diff}, and that dry_run=False commits changes. It also explains the target_type syntax for block references. However, it does not mention error handling, revision conflicts, or consequences of the 'append' mode beyond the mode name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The colon-list format efficiently conveys modes and targets. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, though the syntax for block_ref could be clearer. It avoids redundancy and stays within a few lines.

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 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain 'path' or 'vault' (needed to locate the note), nor 'expected_revision' (likely an optimistic concurrency guard). The description covers the editing mechanics but not the preconditions or error cases, so an agent may still struggle to call it correctly in all scenarios.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the meanings of 'mode' (replace, insert_before, insert_after, append), 'target_type' (heading vs block_ref with section='^block-id'), and 'dry_run'. However, it does not clarify 'path', 'vault', 'expected_revision', or the exact format of 'section' beyond the block_ref case, leaving several parameters underspecified.

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 'Edit a section or block reference inside a note,' which conveys a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like patch_note_text_tool (text edits) and append_to_note_tool by focusing on section/block references, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 a useful dry_run workflow (preview then commit) but does not explain when to choose this tool over similar editing tools (e.g., patch_note_text_tool, append_to_note_tool). It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, relying on the agent to infer from the edit modes.

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