save_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (confirmation with new note ID, or error), which is genuine behavioral context, but it omits whether saving overwrites an existing note with the same title, where the vault lives, and any permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then cleanly separated Args and Returns sections. The Args block restates parameter names that already exist in the schema, which is mildly redundant, but overall it is tight and scannable.

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?

For a 3-parameter, 2-required creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the action, every parameter, and the return shape. The remaining gap is collision/overwrite behavior, which is not covered by the schema or annotations either.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all three parameters are documented, with tags given a concrete comma-separated example format and content noting that Markdown is acceptable. Only the title/content length or constraint semantics are left unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Save a note to the vault') plus the reason for persistence ('found in future sessions'). It is clear this creates a new note rather than mutating one, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_note, leaving the create-vs-update boundary implicit.

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?

There is a weak contextual cue ('so it can be found in future sessions'), but no statement of when to use this versus update_note, search_notes, or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that 'save' means 'create'.

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