Create Note

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions overwriting, but this is misleading because the schema includes an 'overwrite' parameter defaulting to false, implying overwrites are opt-in. The description states unconditionally 'If the note already exists it will be overwritten,' contradicting the schema. It also omits details about error handling, return values, or permission requirements.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the primary action. However, the second sentence about overwriting is not only inaccurate but also could confuse users, which slightly reduces its quality. Structurally it is well-organized, with the action first, then behavior, then formatting guidance.

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 simple create tool, the description covers the main action and path format, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, it does not describe return values, what happens when overwrite is false (error vs no-op), or whether parent directories are created. The overwrite contradiction also leaves a gap in understanding the tool's behavior, making it adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete path format example ('PRDs/my-feature.md') and clarifying content is markdown. It does not add much for the 'overwrite' parameter, but the schema already covers that, and the description's overwrite statement is inaccurate.

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 tool's function: 'Create a new note in the Obsidian vault at the specified path.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_folder, update_note, append_to_note, and delete_note. The overwrite mention adds scope but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 path format guidance ('Use forward-slash separated paths like PRDs/my-feature.md') which is useful. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use create_note versus update_note or append_to_note, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied by the name and action, but not fully explicit.

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