Update note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is a PUT that can both create (if absent) and fully overwrite (if present) a note. However, it omits other behavioral details an agent might need, such as whether the write is atomic, whether a commit is required afterward (given a 'commit' sibling exists), or what happens to dependent links.

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?

A single 15-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the key semantic (PUT, full overwrite) into the parenthetical. Zero wasted words and the most decision-relevant detail is placed early.

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 write tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description captures the essential behavior: create-or-overwrite with full markdown content via PUT. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor omissions around post-write workflow (commit) and atomicity.

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 both path and content are already documented in the schema. The description adds only marginal value by noting content is 'markdown,' which slightly supplements the schema. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 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?

States a specific verb ('create or overwrite'), a clear resource ('note'), and the HTTP method (PUT). The 'overwrite' phrasing and PUT method clearly signal full-replacement semantics, which distinguishes it from the sibling patch_note (partial update) without needing to inspect either 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?

The description implies usage context: 'Create or overwrite' plus '(PUT)' tells an agent this is for full-content replacement rather than partial edits. However, it never explicitly names the alternative (patch_note) or states when-not to use it, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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