save_note

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

The description is minimal, but it does disclose that it writes a file (a mutation) and returns the path, which is helpful. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the responsibility for transparency. It lacks details on overwriting behavior, formatting specifics, or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 concise with two sentences, the first stating the action, the second the return value. It front-loads the core purpose and adds minimal necessary detail. No fluff. Slight deduction for not structuring the return value info clearly, but overall efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 string params, no nested objects), the description covers the essential information: what it does, the format, and the return value. It doesn't detail how the title affects the file name or whether the body is raw markdown, but these are minor for a straightforward tool. With no annotations, it could add a bit more, but it's largely complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions for title or body), so the description must compensate. The description does not elaborate on the format of title or body translations to file name or content, which is a missed opportunity. However, the parameters are simple strings and their purpose is self-evident from the schema structure. The baseline is 3 for moderate coverage.

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 ('Save') and the resource ('a note as a markdown file'), and adds specificity by mentioning the local notes store and the file format. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_notes, search_notes, and drive operations that might superficially overlap.

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 implies usage for creating a note file but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, such as not for notes already existing (maybe list_notes/search_notes for retrieval). However, the context of a 'notes store' sets a clear context for note-related operations.

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