brain_edit

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the destructive 'overwrite' behavior and the need for confirmation via the overwrite and allow_conflict fields. It reveals the read-then-write pattern, adding context that the schema alone does not provide.

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 that front-load the purpose ('Overwrite a note') and efficiently cover the two usage modes and workflow. No unnecessary words.

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 a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: overwrite, read-first workflow, and conflict handling. It omits details on return values, but given no output schema, this is adequate.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that `content` is the full raw markdown from brain_read and that `body`+`frontmatter` follow the brain_write pattern. This clarifies the dual parameter modes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Overwrite a note' as the core purpose, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it combines reading and writing, and references alternatives like brain_supersede for near-duplicates.

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 explicit workflow guidance: read first with brain_read, then write the whole file back. It also contrasts with brain_supersede for conflict scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over brain_write or brain_append beyond the overwrite context.

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