note_save

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses critical behaviors: create vs. update modes, required fields, status returns ('created'/'updated'), title-only rename, content-only body replacement, and the never-stray-create error policy. This is thorough and preempts common misuse.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted list of mode-specific rules. Every sentence adds value, with no filler. The formatting makes the create/update distinction easy to parse.

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 tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential logic, required parameters, error behavior, and status returns. It does not explicitly state whether the notebook must already exist, but this is a minor gap given the level of detail provided.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains that 'notebook' accepts a name or ID, 'note' governs mode, and 'title'/'content' have different requirements depending on mode. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool creates or updates a note (upsert) and accepts a notebook name or ID. The verb 'Create' and 'update' are specific, and the note resource is unambiguous. Although there are no sibling note tools, the description fully clarifies the tool's scope.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: mode is chosen solely by the 'note' parameter, with clear instructions for create (require title and content) and update (supply at least one of title/content). It also explains that an unresolved ref errors rather than creating. It does not compare to alternatives, but no alternative note-save tool exists.

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