create-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 adds one important constraint ('Content must be HTML without newlines') but does not describe other behavioral aspects like whether the note is created in a default folder, what the response or output contains, or any side effects or permissions required.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that immediately state the core purpose and the key constraint. Every word adds value, and the critical content rule is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 create-note tool, the description covers the essential operation and the one critical input constraint. However, it lacks context about how this tool differs from 'create-note-in-folder' and does not mention output behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but the sibling differentiation gap makes it incomplete.

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 does add semantics for the 'content' parameter by specifying the HTML and newline constraints, but it provides no additional meaning for the 'title' parameter, leaving it only as a string type in 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'Create a new Apple Note.' It is specific enough to indicate the tool creates a note, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'create-note-in-folder' by noting the default location or absence of folder selection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create-note-in-folder' or 'append-note'. The description lacks any contextual or conditional information that would help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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