create_note

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds substantial context beyond that: missing subfolders are auto-created, existing notes are never overwritten, the person can undo the change in the app, and the tool returns the saved path.

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 write action and its folder scoping come first, then the refusal rule and alternatives, then preconditions and return value. Every clause carries new information; nothing restates the name or title.

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 four-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers creation semantics, failure mode, permission requirements, private-folder gating, undo, and the return value. No gaps remain that would cause a misinvocation.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds marginal but real semantic framing: the path lives in an unlocked folder, missing subfolders are created, and private=true is gated on an explicit in-chat request from the person.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Make a new Markdown note") plus scope ("at a path inside an unlocked folder"), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming append_to_note and replace_in_note as the tools for changing existing notes.

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?

Explicit when/when-not: refuses creation when a note already exists, and routes the agent to append_to_note or replace_in_note instead. It also gives preconditions (folder must be unlocked, needs Allow edits) and a narrow condition for private=true (only when the person asked in this chat).

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