kura_create

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 states this is a creation tool ('Create a new text note'), implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic creation intent.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or unnecessary information. It's well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (creation operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects, error handling, or return values. For a creation tool without annotations, it should ideally provide more context about what happens after creation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters (content, title, annotation, tags) with their types and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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's purpose: 'Create a new text note in KURA Notes' with specific examples of what to capture ('ideas, information, or any text content'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on creation rather than deletion, retrieval, listing, or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical creation alternatives beyond the sibling context.

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 implied usage context: 'Use this to capture ideas, information, or any text content.' This suggests when to use it (for text note creation) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like using other tools for different operations. No explicit comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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