Replace an existing note's title and body using its note ID, keeping your knowledge base current with revised content.
Replace an existing note's title and body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| body | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Replace' usefully signals full overwrite semantics rather than a merge, but it says nothing about required permissions, what happens on a nonexistent note_id, whether changes are reversible, or any rate/size constraints beyond the schema.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. Brevity is appropriate for a simple three-parameter tool, though the terseness coincides with the informational gaps noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage the description should say more about prerequisites and side effects. As written it is incomplete relative to the tool's write semantics.
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% and all three parameters are required with constraints (minLength/maxLength) that the description never mentions. The description names title and body, mapping to two params, but note_id is never referenced and no format or value guidance is given.
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?
States a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('note') plus the fields affected (title and body), so it is clearly distinguishable from get_note, create_note, delete_note, and search_notes. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from siblings or referencing them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as the note existing, and no routing to alternatives like create_note or get_note. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.