Note Save

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it discloses upsert semantics, per-mode required inputs, that content-only replaces the body, and that unresolved refs error rather than create. It also names the returned status values. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or idempotency guarantees, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 core upsert behavior is front-loaded in one sentence, then the create/update branches are laid out as scannable bullets. Every sentence conveys operational detail with no redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 detailed, though the description helpfully mentions status='created'/'updated'. It covers mode dispatch and error semantics thoroughly, but omits what happens if the notebook reference itself is invalid or whether notebook existence is required, leaving a small gap for an upsert mutation with no annotations.

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: it explains 'note' as the mode switch, defines title-only as rename and content-only as body replacement, and clarifies 'notebook' accepts a name or ID. All four parameters gain meaning beyond their bare types.

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 with dual scope: 'Create a note, or update an existing one (upsert).' It precisely names the parameter that dispatches behavior and the notebook reference it accepts, so an agent can identify the tool's job immediately 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use rules for both modes: omitting 'note' triggers create with both title and content required; supplying 'note' triggers update with at least one of title/content. It also states edge behavior ('A ref that doesn't resolve is a not-found error, NEVER a stray create'), removing any ambiguity about branch selection.

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