brain_set_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explicitly warns 'previous text is lost,' highlighting the destructive nature. It also advises reading the existing note first, which is useful safety context. However, it doesn't mention behavior for nonexistent thoughts or return values, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence earns its place: the replacement semantics, the alternative tool, and a safety caution. No waste.

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 setter with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the key destructive behavior. It omits details like return values or handling of nonexistent thoughts, but these are less critical for this tool. Overall quite complete.

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?

The schema already describes brainId and markdown, with thoughtId lacking a description. The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond reinforcing that markdown is the complete replacement. With 67% schema coverage, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 states the tool 'Replaces a thought's note entirely.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like brain_append_note, which adds rather than replaces.

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 explicitly says 'to add rather than replace, call brain_append_note' and advises reading the existing note with brain_get_thought before overwriting. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names alternatives.

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