create_note

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the first line of body becomes the title and details specific Markdown rendering limitations (headings become bold, checkboxes become plain bullets), giving the agent concrete expectations beyond basic creation.

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?

Tightly written in two short paragraphs. The core purpose and the key title behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter schema with full descriptions, the description covers the essential behavioral quirks and the title-extraction rule. It does not mention return value or side effects, but for a create operation this is a minor gap, not a blocker for correct invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance about the body parameter (Markdown rendering details), which goes beyond the schema's basic 'Markdown' note and clarifies edge-case formatting that affects output.

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 clear verb+resource ('Create a note') with no ambiguity about the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like update_note or append_to_note, even though the name itself carries that distinction.

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?

The description implies the tool is for creating a new note, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or contextual triggers. Usage intent is left to inference.

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