write_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool creates a note, but does not mention side effects, whether content is overwritten or appended, permissions required, failure behavior, or what response is returned. For a write operation this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is arguably under-specified rather than meaningfully structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of return values or post-conditions, the description is thin. The input is simple and fully documented, so the tool is callable, but an agent does not know what happens after the note is created or what the tool returns.

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%, with the 'content' parameter already described as 'Text content of the note.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully documents the only parameter, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 new note.' It is clear and unambiguous about the core action, and with no sibling tools named, there is no differentiation burden. However, it offers little beyond restating the tool name and does not add any context about what a 'note' is or where it is stored.

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, what prerequisites exist, or when an alternative might be preferable. Since there are no sibling tools, there is no routing context, but the lack of any usage context still leaves the agent to infer appropriateness entirely from the tool name and description.

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