create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: Notes itself converts markdown, turning checklist syntax into real checkboxes. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as failure on title collision (schemas say 'must not collide' but not what happens), return values, or permission requirements, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds a valuable behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded and reader-friendly.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide more context. It explains markdown conversion but does not address collision behavior, success/failure indicators, or when to choose create_note over other write tools. It is minimally acceptable but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 schema covers all parameters (100% description coverage), providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning for the 'markdown' parameter by explaining how checklist syntax is converted into functional checkboxes, which is not evident from the schema's 'Body content in Markdown' description. This elevates the parameter semantics beyond the baseline.

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 starts with 'Create a note,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like append_to_note, replace_note_content, and delete_note. It also adds a concrete detail about Markdown-to-checklist conversion, which further sharpens the tool's unique function.

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 (creating new notes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like append_to_note or replace_note_content. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, so guidance is merely implicit.

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