Create or Replace Note

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

The description explicitly discloses the destructive behavior of replacing the entire contents, which is valuable given no annotations. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like directory creation, path validation, or required permissions.

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 a single concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary filler.

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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and destructive nature. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools, and with no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral context, which is only partially met.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, only reinforcing that content replaces the entire note, which is already stated in the schema.

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 'Create a note or replace its entire contents' clearly states the action (create/replace) and resource (note). It distinguishes from sibling tools like append and patch by emphasizing replacing the entire contents.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obsidian_append or obsidian_patch. The description simply states what the tool does without any exclusions or contextual triggers.

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