Create a note in your Obsidian vault, keeping existing notes intact unless you explicitly set overwrite to true.
Create a note. Refuses to clobber an existing note unless overwrite=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| frontmatter | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must carry behavioral weight. It does disclose that existing notes are not clobbered unless overwrite=true, an important safety behavior. However, other meaningful behavior—error handling, idempotency semantics beyond overwrite, path constraints, or required permissions—is left undocumented.
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 brief and front-loads the core action, then provides one meaningful nuance. It avoids fluff, but the first sentence is largely redundant with the tool name, so it does not quite earn the top score for maximally efficient use.
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 absence of an output schema and annotations, this description leaves the agent without several critical call details: how frontmatter should be formatted, whether directories are created, what happens on conflicts beyond a terse 'refuses', and what the return value indicates. It is sufficient for a basic call but under-specified for reliable use.
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 0% and the description only adds meaning for overwrite ('unless overwrite=true'). path, body, and frontmatter receive no additional semantics, and frontmatter in particular is an open object that would benefit from explanation. Schema coverage zero, so the description does not bear the full load.
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 states the action clearly ('Create a note.') and hints at non-destructive behavior. However, it does not explicitly distinguish create_note from sibling tools like create_concept_note, capture_session, or log_entry, so an agent must infer which creation-scope tool to pick.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as append_to_note, patch_section, or create_concept_note. The clobber behavior is a safety note, not usage direction, so the agent receives no explicit context for selecting it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.