create_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavioral rule - refusal to overwrite unless overwrite=true - which is critical for safe use. However, it omits other behaviors like permissions, directory creation, or outcome details, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise: exactly two sentences, with the main purpose stated first and the behavioral constraint immediately after. There is no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 operation, this is nearly sufficient. It explains what gets created, the content type, and the overwrite rule. It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., intervening directory creation) or the return message, but for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and all parameters documented, the added value is high.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description essentially restates the parameters ('markdown content') and reflects the overwrite default. It adds little beyond what the schema already communicates, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 primary action - 'Create a new note in the vault with markdown content' - and distinguishes it from sibling tools (update_note, append_note) by emphasizing 'new note' and the overwrite guard. An agent can readily separate it from other note-related tools without deeper schema inspection.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_note or append_note. It implies the create-only purpose via the overwrite refusal, but it never names alternatives or provides conditions for when not to use it. This is left mostly to inference.

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