create_note_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' and does not mention the critical confirm flag required to execute the write, the agentReason requirement for agent sessions, or any side effects. These are critical behavioral traits missing from the description, though they appear in the schema parameter descriptions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Create a note item in a vault or share.' Every word contributes meaning, including the location qualifier. It is concise without being underspecified at the syntactic level.

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?

The schema covers all parameter semantics, including confirm and agentReason descriptions, so the structured data fills some gaps. However, the description alone lacks behavioral context (e.g., confirmation required, agent reason required) and there is no output schema to explain return values. This makes the definition adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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%, meaning every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but baseline 3 applies because the schema is doing the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'vault or share' loosely maps to the vaultName/shareId parameters without adding new semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Create a note item in a vault or share.' This clearly identifies the operation and its target location, distinguishing it from other item creation tools like create_login_item or create_credit_card_item. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, which would make the differentiation stronger.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other create_*_item tools or when to prefer an alternative. It only implies the basic purpose—creating a note item—but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions like needing a vault/share context or confirmation.

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