edit_note

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

The description clearly discloses the core behavior of replacing existing note text and explains the date default behavior. Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context beyond the schema without contradicting 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 description is a single clear operational sentence followed by a compact, well-structured argument list. Every sentence earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded, making the tool easy to scan and understand.

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 three-parameter edit tool, the description covers the operation, all parameter semantics, the source of the note ID, and the date format/default. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. The definition is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It explains where note_id comes from, what text represents, and the exact format and default for date. This fully compensates for the undocumented 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 states exactly what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the text of an existing diary note.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling note/food editing tools and makes the operation unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: editing an existing note, with the note ID sourced from get_food_log. It does not explicitly name alternatives like add_note for new notes, but the phrase 'existing diary note' strongly implies the distinction, so it falls short of a fully explicit exclusions statement.

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