Patch note section

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

Even though destructiveHint=true already signals mutation, the description goes further: it states the operation preserves the heading line and non-target sections, stores exact prior history, writes atomically, and enforces CAS via expected_hash. It also documents the duplicate-title ordinal behavior. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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 explanation is dense and mostly front-loaded, with each sentence contributing operational detail. The 'Do not use chunk_id' sentence is out of place because that parameter does not appear in the schema, adding slight noise.

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 destructive, CAS-guarded patch operation this is close to complete: it covers target selection, duplicate resolution, atomicity, history, and a key refusal case. It does not state failure behavior when expected_hash mismatches or when expected_hash is omitted, but the output schema helps fill in return expectations.

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?

With no schema-level property descriptions, the description carries the burden and does explain the non-obvious parameters: expected_hash for CAS, and heading_level/heading_occurrence for duplicate titles. However, rel_path and request_id are left implicit, and it even mentions a chunk_id that is not present in the schema.

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The description uses a specific verb and resource ('rewrite an outdated section in place', 'Replace the content under one existing Markdown heading'), so an agent knows what operation is performed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as patch_note_preamble or append_journal, so differentiation relies on the section/heading framing rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

It gives a clear trigger ('when the topic already has a note') and a conditional instruction ('It refuses a level-1 heading that contains subsections; patch a lower-level heading instead'). It does not name alternative tools for creating a new note or patching the preamble, so exclusions are implicit rather than explicit.

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