wiki_write_note

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

Discloses folder auto-creation and frontmatter parsing behavior (JSON string fallback). However, does not mention whether it overwrites existing notes or appends, which is important for a write operation.

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?

Description is concise with a short summary followed by parameter details. The bullet-like listing is efficient, though the parameter descriptions are embedded in prose.

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?

Given an output schema exists (not shown), return values are not required. However, the description lacks error handling details, permission requirements, and behavior on duplicate slugs. It adequately covers basic functionality.

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, the description explains slug as 'arxiv_id or vault relative path', frontmatter as 'dict for YAML serialization with JSON parsing', and body as 'markdown'. This adds meaning but could be more precise (e.g., what is vault?).

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?

Description clearly states it saves a note with frontmatter and body, and auto-creates folders. This is distinct from sibling tools like wiki_read_note and wiki_list, which are read/list operations.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for saving notes, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools implies differentiation.

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