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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly exposes the destructive overwrite behavior, which is the most critical risk. It does not cover secondary side effects, but the core consequence is unambiguous.

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?

One efficient sentence with the action and destructive caveat front-loaded and the path qualifier appended. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 two-string-parameter write operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: full overwrite and vault-relative path. Minor gaps such as directory creation or failure behavior exist, but the basic invocation requirements are satisfied.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully specifies that path is vault-relative, which is meaningful context absent from the schema. Content, however, is not elaborated beyond its parameter name, and no format or path conventions are given.

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 a specific verb and resource: create or overwrite a note at a given vault-relative path. The explicit 'OVERWRITE' wording differentiates it from append_note and makes the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 full replacement and thereby hints at when to use this tool, but it never explicitly names append_note or states when to choose one over the other. An agent is left to infer the boundary between full-write and append behavior.

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