create_daily_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it handles this well: it discloses the open-or-create semantics, the auto-linking to yesterday/tomorrow, and the exact behavior of returning an existing page with `created: false`. This is substantive behavioral context rather than just a restatement of the tool's name.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of useful information: purpose, naming/linking behavior, and return behavior.

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 single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important operational details: how the note title is derived, the linking behavior, and the idempotent return. Some details can be inferred, so it's complete enough for a simple, focused tool.

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 100%, so the parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the date concept and default but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Open or create the daily note') and a clear resource ('daily note'), making the tool's core purpose obvious. The slug pattern and auto-linking constrain scope, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling create_note, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tool's usage context is implied: it is the tool for daily notes, with today or a specific date, and the schema shows the date parameter is optional. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over other creation tools like create_note or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the boundaries.

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