create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a useful non-obvious behavior: FUB does not auto-detect HTML in notes, unlike email templates, and requires isHtml=true. However, it does not cover permissions, side effects, or return value expectations, which leaves some gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds the single most important usage caveat.

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 tool with six documented parameters and no output schema, the description plus the fully described schema is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. It highlights the main gotcha around HTML handling. It could mention return values or prerequisites, but the agent has enough to call the tool accurately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining when isHtml must be passed and contrasting note behavior with email templates. This goes beyond the schema's simple field description.

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 and resource: "Add a note. (POST /notes)". This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note, update_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?

It provides clear context by stating the tool adds a note and gives a concrete condition for when isHtml must be true. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives, but no alternative create-note tool exists among siblings, and no exclusion criteria are needed.

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