update_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the frontmatter is preserved verbatim, while everything below it is replaced with content, and warns to read first to avoid losing data. This clearly reveals the tool's destructive behavior and the safe usage pattern, going beyond simple 'update' phrasing.

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 three sentences long, each earning its place: the main action, a key preservation rule with an alternative, and a usage warning. It is entirely relevant, front-loaded, and contains no filler. This is a model of conciseness.

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 simple two-parameter update tool with no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, the main pitfall (data loss), and the alternative tool for different needs. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare parameter definitions. It adds some meaning for 'content' by specifying that everything below frontmatter is replaced with it, but it doesn't explicitly explain 'name_or_path' beyond what the schema shows. Since the tool is simple and the parameters are inferable, the description partially compensates but leaves some ambiguity.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Rewrite a note's entire body.' It also distinguishes itself from edit_note by explicitly mentioning that frontmatter is preserved and that edit_note should be used for frontmatter changes and targeted corrections. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'use edit_note to change frontmatter' and 'For targeted corrections use edit_note instead.' It also advises reading the note first and carrying forward any content that should survive, which is practical usage instruction. This fully satisfies the dimension.

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