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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which is consistent with a create operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: notes are indexed for search and AI retrieval, and workspace name resolution is automatic. It doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting or required permissions, but for a create tool this is adequate.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains what notes are, when to use them, and the workspace resolution behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, use cases, and key behavioral nuances. With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't mention that document_type defaults to 'markdown' (though the schema does), and it doesn't explicitly state the relationship between workspace_id and workspace_name when both are provided.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the workspace_name resolution behavior and the distinction between labels (IDs) and document_tags (free-form). It also clarifies that folder_id is optional and defaults to workspace level, which is not fully explicit 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new note in Razuna.' It specifies what notes are (rich text knowledge objects), where they are stored (alongside media files), and how they are used (indexed for search and AI retrieval). It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_document and create_collectplus_note by emphasizing notes as knowledge objects.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Use this to store meeting notes, research, project documentation, or any knowledge content.' It also explains the workspace resolution behavior (by ID or name). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like create_document or create_collectplus_note, which are siblings.

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