Edit Block

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

Adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the annotations: the `^id` anchor is re-appended to the last line so existing `![[note#^id]]` transclusions keep working, which is the key side effect an agent must anticipate. Annotations already cover destructiveness and idempotency, so this extra context is what pushes it above baseline.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the non-obvious anchor-preservation behavior and then the use case. 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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema, annotations cover safety profile, and the description covers the most critical behavior (anchor/transclusion preservation). It omits error behavior (e.g. what happens if the block id is not found), which is a minor but real gap.

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% and the schema already documents the `^`-optional block id and the automatic anchor append for `newContent`. The description adds no syntax or edge-case detail (e.g. multi-line content behavior) beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Replace the content of a block tagged with `^id`') and scopes it to anchored blocks, which separates it from sibling tools like `update_section` or `replace_in_note`. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred from the resource qualifier 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 final sentence gives a clear use case: 'update a single paragraph or list item that other notes reference', implying this is the right tool when transclusions must survive. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives are given, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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