create_note

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention that id/type/name are auto-written and that overwrite=True replaces same-named notes. However, it does not specify what happens on conflict when overwrite=False (error vs. skip), nor any permissions or side effects. The safety profile is unaddressed, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 a compact three-sentence paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose and packs note_type enumeration and overwrite semantics into a small space. It is efficient with no fluff, though a slight reorganization could improve scannability.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers creation basics and the overwrite scenario, but omits return values, error handling, and the structure of the note object. For a tool of this complexity, more behavioral and output detail would be expected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all six parameters. It explicitly explains note_type (with a full list), campaign (when required), and overwrite (behavior). But it leaves name, body, and frontmatter vague: name is required yet the description says id/type/name are auto-written, which is confusing; body is only implied by '正文'; frontmatter is never described. The description adds value for three parameters but not the others.

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 a vault note with YAML frontmatter and body, and enumerates the valid note_type values. This is a specific verb (create) on a specific resource (vault note), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_note and list_notes. The inclusion of the note_type list adds precision.

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?

It gives contextual guidance for parameters (campaign-scoped types require campaign) and explains the overwrite flag's purpose (idempotent reruns for module parsing). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like read_note or list_notes, nor state when to choose this tool over an update. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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