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

Annotations only provide generic flags (non-read-only, non-idempotent), so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses two important traits beyond the flags: automatic folder placement when suggested_folder is omitted, and hard failure on path collisions. This gives the agent actionable expectations about side effects and failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying unique information: the core action, the optional parameter branch, and the failure constraint. No filler, no restatement of parameter names or schema details.

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?

With an output schema present and parameter descriptions covering vault_id, the description covers the essential call-time decisions: whether to pass suggested_folder and what happens on a collision. The only minor gap is not detailing how automatic folder placement selects a folder, but this is not necessary for invoking 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds extra meaning by tying suggested_folder to the automatic placement behavior and explaining the collision failure mode, while vault_id's multi-vault requirement is captured in the schema itself. This exceeds the baseline without repeating schema text.

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 ('Create') and resource ('note') and immediately adds distinguishing behavior: automatic folder placement and never-overwrite semantics. This clearly separates it from siblings like write_note, append_to_note, and patch_note, which imply modification or replacement.

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: when creating a new note, and it explicitly states the conditional for suggested_folder. The 'Never overwrites: fails if a note already exists at the resulting path' clause also serves as a when-not indicator, though it does not name an alternative tool for overwriting.

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