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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the note is created as a local copy on the user's Mac, that the operation mirrors the native 'New from template' flow, and that it returns the new note's id. It stops short of covering failure modes such as an ambiguous template name or a workspace not open in Caddie, which matter for a dependent-on-local-client operation.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by the qualifying definition and the return value. Nothing is redundant and every clause adds 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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, it covers the essentials: template semantics, the Mac/local-client dependency, and the return value. What's missing is guidance on cross-parameter constraints (workspace must match the open Caddie workspace) and error behavior, which the schema only partially implies.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: it defines what constitutes a valid template ('notes marked "Use as a template"') and frames the output as a copy to fill in, which clarifies the relationship between the new note and its source.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Make a new note from one of the user's templates') and disambiguates from plain note creation by defining what a template is ('notes marked "Use as a template"') and what the result is ('a copy to fill in'). The UI analogue (⌘K › New from template) makes the behavior concrete and separates it from siblings like create_note or create_video_note.

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 makes the intended use case clear (instantiate a template rather than author a blank note) but never explicitly says when to prefer create_note instead, nor what happens if multiple templates match. Clear context, no stated exclusions.

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