Write note

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: overwriting replaces the entire file (destructive warning), the 'read first' recommendation, and refusal when server is read-only. These are not present in the annotations, so the description adds value.

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 sentences, no fluff, warnings front-loaded after the core action. Every sentence carries useful information.

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 3-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavior, the destructive caveat, and a server-state constraint. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke safely, though it could mention the response type or idempotency explicitly, which are absent.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage and already explains mode, path, and content. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create or overwrite a note, or append to it.' It clearly distinguishes this from the read/search/list siblings by focusing on write operations. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately identifiable.

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?

It gives practical guidance: 'read the note first unless you mean to replace it,' which implicitly directs the agent to use read_note or similar before overwriting. It also notes the read-only server limitation. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives but the context is clear enough.

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