write_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'explicit confirmation' but doesn't explain whether the tool checks the 'confirmed' parameter or expects a separate confirmation step. No disclosure of side effects (overwrite? append?), permissions, or error behavior. The description is too sparse for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, which is short. However, it is not well-structured: 'after explicit confirmation' is awkwardly placed and could be misinterpreted. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. A slightly longer but clearer description would be more effective.

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?

With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover input purpose, return value, and error conditions. It only hints at the confirmation requirement. Missing details about what happens on success, whether the note is persisted, and how to handle conflicts or invalid titles. Inadequate for safe agent usage.

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% — the input schema has no descriptions. The description only implies 'content' is Markdown and 'confirmed' relates to a confirmation. It fails to explain the pattern for 'title', the max length for 'content', or the semantics of 'confirmed' (e.g., must be true to proceed). This does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Write a Markdown note' — a specific verb and resource with the format. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'calculator' and 'read_file'. However, 'after explicit confirmation' is ambiguous (does the tool require pre-confirmation or self-confirm?), and it doesn't clarify what a 'note' is (a file? a database entry?).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'query_notes' (searching) or 'read_file' (reading). No when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisites are mentioned. The phrase 'after explicit confirmation' hints at a constraint but is not actionable guidance.

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