replace_note

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

Discloses backup location (~/.bear-mcp-backups/), backup nature (read-only DB snapshot), and potential lag with unsaved Bear edits. Adds substantial context beyond destructiveHint annotation.

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 well-structured sentences, each adding value: first states purpose and key constraint, second adds backup detail. 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?

Covers operation, input constraints, and backup behavior. With an output schema, return values need not be explained. Lacks mention of id requirement (though in schema), but overall adequate for a 2-param tool.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that 'text' must be the full note including title line, not just body. No additional info for 'id', but the text guidance is crucial.

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?

Description clearly states 'Overwrite a note's ENTIRE text, including its title line', specifying the verb (overwrite), resource (note), and scope (entire text). This distinguishes it from partial update siblings like append_note and prepend_note.

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?

Explicitly instructs to pass the full text from read_note to avoid title changes, implying the proper usage flow. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', but the constraint is clear enough.

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