replace_in_note

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that frontmatter is never affected (scope of mutation) and recommends dryRun for previewing. It does not discuss failure modes like hash_conflict, but the schema documents that, and the bar is lower given the annotation coverage.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the supporting details (feature list, frontmatter exclusion, dryRun tip) follow in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

With 9 parameters and no output schema, the description could do more to explain return values or error conditions. It does not mention what the tool returns on success (e.g., count of replacements, updated content) or how it reports failures like hash_conflict or note-not-found. The schema and annotations cover some aspects, but the lack of output guidance leaves a gap for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so all 9 parameters are individually documented. The description adds only a high-level summary of capabilities ('Supports literal and regex search, case sensitivity, whole-word matching, and a replacement limit') and a tip about dryRun, but this does not meaningfully augment the schema, which already explains each parameter's semantics. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and action: 'Find and replace text within a note body.' It goes beyond a simple verb by listing supported features (literal/regex, case sensitivity, whole-word, limit) and explicitly excludes frontmatter, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch_frontmatter or append_note. An agent can immediately understand what it does without needing to inspect the schema.

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 provides clear context: it is for body text replacement, and explicitly states 'Frontmatter is never touched,' which serves as a when-not-to-use boundary. It also advises using dryRun to preview before writing, which is a concrete usage tip. However, it does not name any alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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