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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, so the description correctly adds context beyond them by disclosing that the tool indexes for search and syncs to Obsidian. This gives the agent useful side-effect information. No contradiction exists between the description and 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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds relevant behavioral context. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 schema and output schema cover the parameters and return shape, and the description plus annotations cover side effects. However, the description does not clarify whether 'update' means full content replacement or partial merging, which is important given the destructive hint and the existence of patch_note and update_section siblings.

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%, and the schema already explains path, content, and vault_id in detail, including the important multi-vault requirement. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Write or update a note') and identifies the resource. It also adds meaningful scope by mentioning storage, search indexing, and Obsidian sync. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_note, patch_note, or append_to_note, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as patch_note or append_to_note. The phrase 'Write or update' implies full-note writes, but there is no stated exclusion, prerequisite, or comparison with sibling tools. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate use case.

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