new_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose substantial behavior: automatic project-slug routing into subfolders, the decision/adr and project special cases, and the fix- postmortem exception. It omits error handling, duplicate-title behavior, and permission requirements, but the key side-effect (where files land) is well covered.

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-loads the core purpose, then uses a structured block for routing rules and an Args section for parameters. The routing detail is dense but genuinely earns its place; length is justified by the complexity it resolves.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a create/mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical routing and per-parameter semantics; only edge cases such as collisions or permission failures are left unaddressed.

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: note_type enumerates the six valid types (absent from the schema), title notes kebab-case filename conversion, content is labeled optional post-template content, and tags specifies comma-separated format and frontmatter placement.

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 (create) and resource (note) plus scope (in the vault), and the routing rules make it clearly distinct from siblings like update_note, append_to_note, and read_note. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'create a new note,' and the extensive routing rules describe how the tool behaves when invoked. However, it never states when to prefer this over alternatives (update_note, append_to_note) or any preconditions/exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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