create_or_update_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important trait: an existing note's content is overwritten (destructive to prior content). It says nothing about permissions, whether the overwrite is reversible, encoding/encoding normalization, what happens on a missing path, or the return value. Partial disclosure of the critical risk earns a mid score but not more.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the operation plus its overwrite consequence are front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate: it says what it writes and where. It omits sibling routing (append vs overwrite) and any behavior on failure or missing paths, which for a write tool with no annotations leaves real gaps.

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% (both 'path' and 'content' are documented in-schema as vault-relative path and Markdown content), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or edge-case detail beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource ('cria uma nova nota ou sobrescreve o conteúdo de uma nota existente') and names the exact target store (vault do Obsidian). The create-or-overwrite dual behavior is clear, but it never names the sibling it should be distinguished from (append_to_note), so an agent must infer the boundary 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent when to pick this over append_to_note for adding content to an existing note, nor any precondition (e.g. does the path need to exist, are parent folders created). The only implicit signal is the word 'sobrescreve', which a careful agent could read as 'use append_to_note to avoid clobbering', but that inference is left entirely to the caller.

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