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

The description discloses specific internal system behavior beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true). It details how line breaks function (blocks are separate paragraphs) and informs the agent that the system automatically creates the note if it doesn't exist for that date.

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 structure is highly efficient. It starts with the primary function, immediately details the critical operational modes (append vs. replace), and ends with clear use-case examples, ensuring maximum value per sentence.

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?

Given the complexity of a writing/mutation tool (handling creation, formatting, and state changes like appending), the definition is complete. It informs the agent not just how to call it, but how the underlying system will process the input content.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial operational semantics to the 'content' parameter by detailing that it accepts Markdown and 'lo convierte a formato del editor.' It also reinforces the append logic outside of the boolean parameter.

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 specific action: 'Escribe o agrega contenido a la nota diaria del workspace.' This distinguishes it from read operations (like get_daily_note) and focuses entirely on mutation.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on *when* to use the tool ('registrar lo que pasó hoy, anotar ideas, documentar reuniones, agregar tareas...') and, more critically, guides the user on the usage difference between append=true (default) and append=false (replacement).

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