write_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Write a note' without mentioning that it overwrites existing notes, whether it creates parent directories (though schema has create_dirs), whether it prepends frontmatter, or any side effects. The schema covers some parameters, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the basic write action.

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 a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It's concise and to the point, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 tool has a nested request object, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior, path constraints, or any return value expectations. The schema covers parameters, but the description doesn't provide enough behavioral context for an agent to fully understand the tool's side effects.

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 including path, content, atomic, create_dirs, and frontmatter. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Write') and resource ('note to the Obsidian vault'), which clearly distinguishes it from read_note, list_notes, and search_notes. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the action is unambiguous enough that an agent can tell it apart from the read/search siblings.

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 implies usage: use this when you need to create or overwrite a note in the vault. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_note (which doesn't exist among siblings), but the context of a write operation versus read/search siblings is clear enough for basic selection.

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