create_weekly_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: it discloses that the tool creates from a template, produces a structured note, avoids overwriting existing notes, and returns a message if the note already exists. This gives clear behavioral expectations for a write operation, though it does not mention details like permissions or file location.

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-organized into a clear summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the core action, template source, idempotency behavior, and parameter semantics are all covered without unnecessary verbosity.

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 two optional parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context to invoke it correctly: what it creates, how week is formatted, what extra_vars does, and what happens on conflict. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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%, but the description fully compensates by defining the week identifier format (YYYY-WXX), accepting date expressions like 'today + 1w', stating the default behavior, and describing extra_vars as a dictionary of template variables. This is exactly the context an agent needs beyond the bare 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 clearly identifies the verb and resource: 'Create a weekly note from the configured template.' It makes the tool's purpose specific and grounded in the vault's weekly note workflow. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_daily_note or create_monthly_report beyond the name itself.

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 implies usage through details like using the vault's weekly template, defaulting to the current week, and safely returning a message if the note already exists. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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