create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It discloses the creation side effect, template expansion behavior, standard template variables, custom variable support, and error behavior for existing slugs. It does not mention return values or any access considerations, but the core behavioral traits are clearly conveyed.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action and purpose, then provides behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place: when to use, template/variable behavior, and error alternative. No padding or redundancy.

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 an 8-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers most of what an agent needs: purpose, template mechanics, at least one accepted input, and the failure mode. It doesn't document return output or some remaining fields, but the core success path and failure behavior are present, so it is reasonably complete.

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 50%, so the description must partially compensate. It adds value by explaining the relationship between title/content and template, and by enumerating the variables injected into a template. However, parameters like kind, tags, and project receive no additional semantic meaning beyond shallow schema names, leaving some parameter intent under-specified.

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 action and resource: 'Create a new wiki note.' It then lists concrete use cases (capturing a thought, starting a research page, building a meeting/person/project page) and distinguishes itself from extend-style siblings by warning against existing slugs. This is enough for an agent to tell it apart from related tools like append_to_page.

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 when-to-use guidance: capturing thoughts, research pages, and template-based pages. It also provides an explicit when-not-to-use path: 'Existing slugs cause an error — use append_to_page or update_note_section to extend.' This leaves little ambiguity about choosing this tool over alternatives.

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