save_note

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

The description clarifies that this is a persistence operation and that notes live in a shared vault, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose behaviors like overwrite semantics, return values, or permission requirements, and the annotations only cover destructiveHint.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, usage context follows, and the optional parameter guidance is concise and actionable.

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 tool is simple, has no nested objects or enums, and the schema covers all parameters. The description provides enough context for correct invocation, but it does not mention what the tool returns, such as a note ID, which would be useful for subsequent update or delete calls.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond schema descriptions, especially for `project`: it explains when to use it and gives a concrete example of the current working directory's folder or repo name. This helps the agent populate parameters correctly.

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 'Save a new note to the shared knowledge vault', using a specific verb and resource. The word 'new' differentiates this from the sibling update_note, and the vault context distinguishes it from get/search/delete operations.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'research findings, decisions, or context worth persisting across chat and code sessions'. It also provides guidance on when to pass `project`, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like update_note.

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