write_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates/updates notes and returns a markdown summary, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether updates overwrite existing notes, authentication requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that states the core function and return value. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though it could be slightly more comprehensive given the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and return format, but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral context that would be needed for optimal agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description provides no information about what the parameters mean or how they should be used. It doesn't mention any of the parameters (title, content, folder, project, tags, note_type) or their purposes, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Create or update') and resource ('a markdown note'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_note' or 'edit_note'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'edit_note' which might also update notes, making it slightly less specific than a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_note' or 'create_memory_project'. It mentions the tool's function but lacks context about prerequisites, when-not scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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