Write a note

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive write, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: writes are indexed immediately (so search finds them) and existing files are never overwritten. That indexing and collision-safety behavior is not derivable from the annotation flags.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the write action and immediate indexing come first, the non-overwrite guarantee second. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 non-destructive write tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including indexing. It leaves minor gaps, such as what is returned and what happens on a name collision given files are never overwritten, but the core call path is complete.

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 only 50% — 'title' and 'tags' have no schema descriptions. The description mentions that Markdown frontmatter carries the title, but adds nothing about 'tags' or the 'name' default/format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (save/write) and resource (Markdown note in the notes folder) and characterizes the kind of content it holds. It does not name a sibling tool, but the 'so later searches find it' clause implicitly ties it to ragdown_recall, making it distinguishable from the read-side tools.

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?

Gives positive guidance about what belongs here (a decision, a fix, a how-to) which is useful for choosing to write. However it names no alternative and no when-not condition — e.g. when to use this versus ragdown_reindex or ragdown_read_doc — leaving routing to inference.

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