edit-note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the actions performed. It discloses no behavioral traits such as whether edits are destructive, concurrency handling (though expected_mtime parameter exists), permission requirements, or side effects.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key idea ('Unified tool'). Every word is necessary, with no extraneous details.

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?

Despite having 11 parameters and three action modes, the description is too brief. It omits explanation of how the three actions differ, how parameters relate to each action, and what the return value is (no output schema). Critical context is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond listing action types, which are already enumerated in the action parameter. It does not elaborate on other parameters like expected_mtime, dry_run, or context_lines.

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 identifies the tool as a unified tool for three specific edit actions: targeted text edits, section replacements, and batch edits. It provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like manage-notes (CRUD) and refactor-notes (larger restructuring).

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 implies the tool is for editing note content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage-notes or refactor-notes. No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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