create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It transparently states the failure condition (existing note causes failure) and the file format restriction (.md only). However, it does not mention the return value or any side effects like indexing, which could be considered minor omissions.

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 short sentences—and covers all essential details: the action, the condition, and the format constraint. There is no redundant or filler content, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description is adequate. It does not explicitly mention the return value, but the action is straightforward and the schema likely covers that. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context about side effects or related operations.

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 input schema provides clear, complete descriptions for all three parameters: path (vault-relative path with example), content (body without frontmatter), and optional frontmatter (YAML metadata). The 100% schema coverage means each parameter is well-defined, leaving no ambiguity about its meaning or format.

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 states the action (create a Markdown note), the resource (a note), and a key condition (fail if it already exists). It also specifies the supported format (.md), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling write tools.

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 for creating new notes without overwriting, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like write_note or append_note. The 'fail if already exists' condition hints at the use case, but there is no direct comparison or guidance for selection among sibling tools.

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