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 clearly states that the tool creates a new note or overwrites an existing one, and specifies markdown format. However, it does not discuss side effects like idempotency or permissions.

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 consists of two short sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and efficiently adds context about markdown and use cases.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, behavior, and usage. It could be improved by mentioning the expected return value or clarifying overwrite vs. append behavior.

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% and the schema already includes example values for 'name' and 'markdown' for 'content'. The description adds no new information beyond repeating these examples, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 (write/update), resource (note), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying that it creates or overwrites a note, with examples like reference tables and research summaries.

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 use cases for when to use this tool (reference tables, lists, etc.) but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'append_note' or state when to avoid using it.

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