create_note

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that rich text is native, that 'plain' preserves literal text, and that request_id supports idempotent retries. It doesn't discuss authorization or failure behavior, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the two most useful usage caveats without repetition.

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 description is usable for a simple create call, but it doesn't explain how notebook is specified or how this tool relates to formatting siblings like format_note and format_rich_note. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the parameter guidance remains incomplete.

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%, and the description compensates only for format ('plain' for literal text) and request_id (stable value for retries). The required parameters title, text, and notebook are left to their self-evident names, and notebook remains ambiguous about whether it expects an ID or name.

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 names a specific verb ('Create'), a resource ('a note'), and a defining feature ('native rich text'). This clearly separates it from siblings like create_notebook, search_notes, and get_note.

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 gives clear context for creating notes and adds practical guidance: use format='plain' for literal text and a stable request_id for retries. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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