write_note

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent, open-world), the description discloses the conditional compare-and-set and create-only behaviors and specifies that a failed condition reports the actual stored value. This is meaningful behavioral context that the schema and annotations do not provide.

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?

Three tight sentences convey the core action, the size limit, the two optional guards, and failure reporting. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 write tool with moderate parameter complexity, no output schema, and annotations that already indicate destructiveness and side effects, the description provides all essential operational details: durability, size cap, guard behavior, and failure reporting. An agent can invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 already covers 100% of parameters, so the description is not required to restate them. It adds real value by explaining the semantics of if_matches and if_absent in plain language and describing the failure behavior, which goes beyond the schema's terse 'Compare-and-set guard' and 'Create-only guard' labels.

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 names a specific verb ('Write'), a specific resource ('durable note'), and an explicit size constraint ('<= 8192 characters'). It also describes the conditional write modes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from read_note and list_notes.

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 makes clear that write_note is the persistent-writing counterpart to the read/list note tools, and it explains when the if_matches and if_absent guards apply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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