Replace a note's content

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes the tool is 'destructive' (overwrites full content), which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not detail other aspects like permission requirements or side effects, but the main concern is covered.

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 sentences, no wasteful words. The main action is front-loaded, and each sentence provides essential information.

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 mutation tool, the description covers the operation, usage guidelines, and destructive nature. No output schema is needed for a straightforward write action. The tool is well-specified given its complexity.

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%, so description must compensate. The parameters 'path' and 'content' are self-explanatory from context: path is the note location, content is the new text. The description adds the meaning of overwriting, but does not specify formats or constraints.

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 title 'Replace a note's content' and description 'Overwrite a note's full content' clearly state the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'append_to_note' and 'patch_note' as alternatives for non-destructive updates.

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 advises when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Prefer `append_to_note` or `patch_note` when only adding to a note — replacing wholesale is destructive.' This gives clear context for selection.

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