Edit note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds that edits are surgical and find_replace is an exact-string match, which helps. It does not disclose what happens when the find string is missing or non-unique, nor that changes are unrecoverable, which is significant for a mutation tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the operation modes front-loaded and the sibling preference trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what a successful or failed edit returns, nor how a failed find_replace is reported. For a destructive four-parameter mutation tool this leaves real gaps, though the core calling semantics are covered.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameter meaning is already documented, including that find is exact-string and find_replace-only. The description reinforces the three operation values but adds no format or constraint details beyond what the schema and enum already convey. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (edit) and resource (existing note) plus the three supported modes: append, prepend, find_replace. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling write_note by saying to prefer it over rewriting whole notes, so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

"Prefer this over rewriting whole notes" gives a clear selection rule against the obvious alternative, and "surgically" sets the intent. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or mention of read_note/search_notes as prerequisites for locating a find target.

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