heading.replace_body

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses error conditions and the need for a precomputed hash, but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. It also doesn't clarify the return behavior.

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 sentences, all relevant and front-loaded. No filler or redundant information. 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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details about return values, most parameter semantics, and examples, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, but the description only addresses the 'expected_section_hash' parameter and implies 'content'. The other parameters (file, vault, dry_run, heading, delimiter) are not explained, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 'Replace the BODY beneath a heading (not the heading line itself)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like heading.find or heading.rename by focusing on body replacement rather than the heading line.

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 mentions error conditions ('Errors if heading missing or path is ambiguous') and a prerequisite ('Requires expected_section_hash from heading.find/outline'). This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it compared to alternatives.

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