patch_note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds operational semantics — exact behavior of append, prepend, replace — and the frontmatter constraint, which is useful. It does not mention the prevHash concurrency guard or hash_conflict failure, but those are fully documented in the schema, and there is no contradiction.

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 compact segments: the main purpose, the operations list, and the frontmatter constraint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, contains zero fluff, and 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 6 parameters, the description covers the operational model and key constraints (frontmatter untouched). It omits details like prevHash and createIfMissing, but these are fully specified in the schema, so the description plus schema together provide a complete picture. A small addition like mentioning the concurrency guard would push it higher.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by defining what each operation does (append after section, prepend after heading line, replace section content) and clarifying the targeting mechanism (heading or block without ^ prefix). This goes well beyond the schema's individual 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?

Clearly states the tool surgically edits a specific section of a note, targeted by heading or block reference, without rewriting the whole file. It identifies three operations (append, prepend, replace) and explicitly notes frontmatter is untouched, distinguishing it from siblings like append_note and patch_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?

Conveys that it is for targeted, non-rewriting edits and excludes frontmatter, which gives helpful context for choosing this tool. However, it does not name specific alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance beyond these implications.

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