lipi_create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple 'creates a note' by revealing the idempotency rule and the HTTP status code difference (200 vs 201), which is exactly the kind of behavioral trait that helps an agent anticipate outcomes.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, the idempotency behavior is directly stated, and the path examples are compact and illustrative.

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, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, idempotency, status codes, and path format. It does not describe the response body or edge cases like auto-creating parent directories, but those are minor gaps given the schema already documents both parameters and no output schema exists.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete path format examples ('daily/2083-05-12.md' or 'My Note.md') and by referencing the idempotency key (user_id, path), which clarifies how the path parameter behaves.

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') and the resource ('a note at path with content'), which is specific and unambiguous. The idempotency note and path examples further distinguish this create tool from sibling read/update/delete/search tools without needing to open the schema.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: when creating a note at a specific path. It also clarifies idempotent behavior, signaling that reusing an existing path will not create a duplicate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like an update tool for modifying existing notes, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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