Write note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the non-clobbering default, the overwrite escape hatch, and automatic project folder creation. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond a simple 'create a note' statement.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the overwrite and folder-creation behaviors are stated economically without redundancy.

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 write tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main action, the clobbering edge case, and the folder-creation side effect. It could mention return behavior or explicitly route to append_note for existing notes, but the core usage is adequately covered.

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?

The schema already describes all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the overwrite behavior and the automatic folder creation tied to the project parameter, which enriches understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a note in the project's vault folder.' It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like append_note, read_note, and search_notes because it focuses on creation behavior.

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 clearly implies that this tool is for creating notes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer append_note or another sibling. It gives behavioral context such as refusing to overwrite, but no direct when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance.

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