write_note

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

The description meaningfully supplements the annotations. Annotations declare not readOnly, not idempotent, not destructive — but the description adds key behavioral guarantees: gated write (create vs append only), never overwrites, never deletes, and protection of immutable raw/ source directories. This is valuable context beyond what annotations provide.

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 tightly-scoped sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action ('Gated write'), then safety guarantees, then the dry_run tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

A 4-parameter write tool with an output schema and good annotations — the description covers the critical behavioral constraints (gating, safety, dry_run). The main omission is not describing idempotency behavior for repeated append operations or what the output schema returns, but the output schema exists so return-value documentation isn't the description's job. Overall sufficient for a moderately complex mutation tool.

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 0%, yet the description compensates well by explaining the mode parameter ('create' vs 'append'), the safe-write behavior, and the dry_run preview capability. The content and path parameters are self-explanatory from their names, and the description covers the semantics that needed clarification. A small gap remains for dry_run's exact output format, but the core semantics are covered.

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 verb+resource action: 'write' a note with distinct 'create' and 'append' modes, targeting '.md' notes. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling read_note by framing this as 'Gated write', so the purpose is specific and 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 provides clear constraints on usage: never overwrites, never deletes, and never writes into raw/ directories. The dry_run=true preview guidance adds practical usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this vs a specific alternative (e.g., when to use search_wiki or read_note), though the write/read distinction is implicit.

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