zk_create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this creates a new note but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether it returns the created note, assigns an ID, or how errors are handled). It mentions note_type options but doesn't explain their significance or default behavior. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves important behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 appropriately concise with a clear opening statement followed by parameter explanations. The parameter list is well-structured with brief but informative explanations. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the formatting with indentation could be cleaner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given this is a creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an adequate but incomplete job. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks information about what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it integrates with the Zettelkasten system. For a tool that presumably creates persistent data, more context about the creation outcome would be helpful.

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?

The description provides meaningful semantic information for all parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'title' is the note's title, 'content' is the main content, 'note_type' has specific allowed values with examples, and 'tags' are optional and comma-separated. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't elaborate on format requirements or constraints.

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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Zettelkasten note', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like zk_update_note or zk_delete_note by specifying it's for creating new notes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like zk_create_link, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose zk_create_note over zk_update_note for modifications, or how it relates to sibling tools like zk_create_link. There's no context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic action.

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