Create a Ygdria note

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the idempotency contract: a unique key, same-key-same-params retry semantics, and a 30-day window — information an agent could not derive from idempotentHint=false alone. It does not say what is returned or whether missing optional fields default silently, but the idempotency disclosure is substantive added value.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the retry contract second; nothing is redundant. The clause 'including necessary notes for organizing or summarizing' is filler that could be cut without loss.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations covering permissions or side effects, and 0% schema coverage on six parameters. The description covers the idempotency story well but leaves the agent guessing about required inputs, field defaults, placement behavior, and what a successful create returns.

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% across 6 parameters, yet the description only explains idempotencyKey. It says nothing about title (the sole required field), content, tags, the text/code enum on type, or parentPlacementId — so the agent gets no help on five undocumented parameters.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Create a note') and scopes it to 'the user-authorized task', which distinguishes it from update_note, edit_content, append_content and the search_* siblings. The phrase 'including necessary notes for organizing or summarizing' is slightly muddy but the core operation is unambiguous.

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 retry condition is spelled out precisely (uncertain network result → retry with the same key and identical parameters within 30 days), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. However, nothing tells the agent when to pick this over append_content, edit_content or update_note, nor what prerequisites (auth, parent placement) must hold.

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