create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that embedding is generated automatically in the background and that server-side wikilink/tag rules apply. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether creation is synchronous, or failure behavior, leaving some operational gaps.

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 two sentences with no filler: purpose first, then a noteworthy behavioral detail, then the required server rules. Every clause earns its place and the most important instruction is front-loaded.

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 definition covers the core action, background embedding, and required pre-steps, which is sufficient for basic usage. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves return value, embedding completion status, and folder selection guidance largely unstated.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for the tags parameter by requiring verification against list_tags before coining new tags. It does not clarify title, content, folder_id, or the relationship between folder_id and folder_path beyond what the schema already states.

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 opens with 'Create a new note,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like append_to_note or update_note, though the create semantic makes the primary intent unambiguous.

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 explicit pre-use workflow instructions: search_notes first, link related notes, and call list_tags before introducing a new tag. However, it does not state when to prefer an alternative such as update_note or append_to_note, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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