karea_edit_note

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions the tool returns the updated note, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the lack of annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information without any extraneous words. It is concise and to the point.

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 edit-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is modified, how it's identified, and the return value. It is mostly complete, though could mention error conditions or success confirmation.

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 the input schema already documents all parameters adequately. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond 'by note ID' and 'return the updated note,' which is consistent with the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Change the text...'), the resource ('existing note on a task'), and the identifier ('by note ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like karea_add_note and karea_delete_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 implies usage when updating an existing note's text, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., karea_add_note or karea_delete_note). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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