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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses non-obvious behavior: content is HTML/markdown, chips create references, and "el grafo de referencias se actualiza automáticamente" on save. It does not say whether permissions are required or what the call returns (e.g., the new note's id), which matters for chaining into notes_update or chip embedding.

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?

Purpose and the exclusion are front-loaded, and every sentence carries actionable information (format, chip patterns, graph side effect, example). The chip enumeration is long but earns its place as the tool's primary usage mechanic; only the closing example mildly repeats the syntax already given.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, exclusions, content format, and the reference-graph side effect well. The remaining gap is the return value — an agent does not learn whether it gets back an id it can use in subsequent chips or update calls.

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 beyond it: the content field's chip syntax with a concrete worked example ($[note:42:Contrato]) and the full set of linkable resource types. It does not elaborate on tags or folderId, which are covered only by 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Crea una nota nueva") and immediately scopes it as documentation ("cómo se hace o cómo funciona algo"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling log_create/log_append tools, so an agent can route without inspecting either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit negative rule ("NO la uses para registrar actuaciones con fecha") and names the correct alternatives (log_create/log_append). The when-to-use condition (documentation of how something works) is stated alongside the exclusion, leaving nothing to inference.

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