create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates' a note without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid notebook_id). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the main action, though the 'Args' formatting could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, but it lacks completeness in other dimensions.

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 has an output schema (not shown here), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a creation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, it should provide more context on usage and behavior. The parameter documentation helps, but gaps in guidelines and transparency make it only minimally adequate.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents all three parameters (notebook_id, title, content), adding meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it only provides basic labels without details like format constraints (e.g., notebook_id structure, content length limits), so it partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 new note') and resource ('in the specified notebook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from potential sibling tools like 'download_notes' or 'list_notebooks', which would require 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing notebook), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'ask_notebook' or 'generate_report' for note-related tasks.

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