patch_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that frontmatter is never touched and defines three operations. However, it does not mention error handling, permissions, or what happens on failure. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, no wasted words. The critical information (targeting method, operations, frontmatter rule) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 all parameters, operations, and key constraints (frontmatter untouched, createIfMissing only for headings). Without an output schema, return values are not explained, which is acceptable. For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is almost complete.

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 significant value by explaining operation behaviors ('append: insert after section content') and constraints on createIfMissing ('Only valid for heading targets'). This goes beyond the schema's brief 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 uses strong verbs ('Surgically edit', 'targeted by heading or block reference') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like append_note (appends to end) and create_note (new file). It specifies the resource (section of a note) and the scope (no frontmatter).

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 implies use for targeted edits without rewriting the whole file, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for full rewrites use write_note) or mention alternatives. It provides operational context but lacks clear exclusion guidance.

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