create_note

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that description accepts Markdown and the MCP layer handles conversion, and clarifies the roles of related_to vs associated. However, it omits side effects, permissions, rate limits, or any error behavior, and does not reference the output schema.

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 compact (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the action. Each sentence adds value with no redundancy. The use of code formatting for Markdown examples is clear and helps the agent understand usage.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the essential creation flow and parameter behavior. However, it does not mention note_type_id, which is an optional parameter, nor any prerequisites or post-creation effects.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: it explains that description supports Markdown and how it is rendered, and it clarifies the primary vs cross-linking function of related_to and associated. This compensates for the schema's lack of description on the description parameter and note_type_id.

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 clearly identifies the tool as creating a note via POST /v1/notes and explains the key parameters (description, related_to, associated) in detail. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_task or log_meeting by specifying the note-specific behavior.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_note or other create tools). No usage context or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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