write_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that unresolved links are reported rather than rejected and that the index refreshes automatically, which is non-obvious context. But it omits a critical write-tool behavior: what happens if file_path already exists (overwrite vs. error), and any permission/conflict semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then layered with format and behavioral detail; every sentence carries information and nothing is padded. The one blemish is the misplaced '`description` is required' claim, which is both incorrect against the schema and interrupts the otherwise tight structure.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the trickiest params and two key behaviors, which is meaningful. But it leaves most parameters undocumented and never resolves the overwrite/conflict question, so an agent could still call it incorrectly. The existing output schema relieves the description of return-value duty.

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, and it does add real meaning for a few params (file_path kebab-case EN in vault root, moc accepts 'Rust MOC' or '[[Rust MOC]]', auto_index batching). However, 8 of 12 params (tags, type, status, aliases, retracted, supersedes, content, title) get no semantic treatment. It also asserts 'description is required' while the schema marks it optional with default null — a factual conflict.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new vault note.' The word 'new' distinguishes it implicitly from the sibling update_note, but that contrast is never made explicit. An agent can identify the operation, but the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 supplies workflow context (a hub may be written before its spokes, use auto_index=False to batch) which implies how the tool fits into a flow. However, it never states when to reach for write_note versus update_note, nor any prerequisites such as whether the target file must not already exist. Usage is implied, not directed.

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