create_note

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses the write side effect, required Automation access for Notes, Full Disk Access for verify read-back with Automation fallback, and that writes are verified after creation. It also states unknown or ambiguous folder names are refused, which is meaningful behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 purpose and stable-ID return are front-loaded, followed by parameter and behavior details in a compact paragraph. It is appropriately sized, though dense parentheticals and the issue reference '#49' make it slightly less clean than ideal.

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 creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential creation behavior, folder constraints, authentication requirements, verification behavior, and uniqueness/return-ID details. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the write side effect.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains that title/body are plaintext with markup escaped and inert, and gives detailed folder semantics including cross-account lookup, default omission, and refusal of unknown/ambiguous names. The title parameter is only lightly explained beyond being plaintext, keeping this from a 5.

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: create a note, and immediately explains it returns a stable x-coredata id usable with note_bodies. This clearly differentiates creation from sibling tools like notes, notes_all, update_note, and delete_note without requiring the agent to inspect schemas.

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 gives clear creation context and details folder selection rules: an existing folder name across accounts or omit for default, with unknown/ambiguous names refused. It does not explicitly compare to update_note or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit when/when-not/alternatives bar for a 5.

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