Edit note content in a Wanderlog trip

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: case-insensitive search, scope across note types, handling of no matches (error) and multiple matches (numbered previews), and in-place replacement when exactly one match is found. It also mentions the optional day filter. Could add return value details.

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 concise at 8 sentences, well-structured with the main action first, then behavioral details and optional filter. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers search scope, match handling, and optional filter but lacks specification of the return value on success (e.g., confirmation or updated content). Given no output schema, this omission reduces completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining search behavior (case-insensitive, multiple match handling) and clarifying the day format flexibility. It extends beyond the schema's brief parameter 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 it edits note content by finding and replacing a substring, specifying the resources (freestanding notes, place annotations, checklist items). It distinguishes from sibling tools like wanderlog_add_note and wanderlog_remove_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?

The description explains when to use the tool (to replace a substring), how it handles matches (single, none, multiple), and provides guidance on using a more specific substring or the day filter. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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