edit_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the uniqueness constraint ('old_text must occur exactly once'), the safety property ('cannot drop text you did not quote'), and workspace scope. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., if old_text is missing) or whether the operation is reversible.

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: exactly four sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides actionable usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers key use cases: how to invoke correctly (read_note first, ensure uniqueness), when to prefer it over update_note, and its safety property. Since an output schema exists (per context signals), return values need not be described. Minor gaps remain (e.g., error behavior, case sensitivity), but the description is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains old_text ('must occur exactly once', 'copy the passage verbatim') and indirectly implies new_text as replacement. It does not explain name_or_path, but the term is self-explanatory. Overall, it adds meaning to old_text and gives usage tips, but not exhaustive coverage of all parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Surgically correct an existing note by exact string replacement.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling update_note by emphasizing exact string replacement. It also notes it works anywhere in the file, including frontmatter, further clarifying scope.

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 directs users to read_note first and copy the passage verbatim, adding surrounding lines if not unique. It also states 'Prefer this over update_note for corrections: it cannot drop text you did not quote,' providing a clear alternative and rationale.

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