save_note

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical behavioral traits: asynchronous AI processing for link notes, varying return schemas by note_type, and image URL pre-validation requirements. Minor gap on rate limits or error behaviors, but strong coverage of operational model.

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?

Efficient structure with bold headers separating workflow instructions from return value documentation. Front-loaded purpose statement, zero redundancy. Chinese text is dense but well-organized with visual markers (⚠️) for critical constraints.

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?

Comprehensive despite missing output schema. Description compensates by documenting return value structures for each note type (including the `tasks` array for links). Covers 7 parameters with validation rules (tag limits, parent constraints) and cross-tool dependencies. Complete for agent invocation.

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% (baseline 3), but description adds essential workflow semantics: explains `image_urls` requires prior `upload_image` call, notes that `content` is unnecessary for link notes, and clarifies conditional requirements (`link_url` required for link type). Adds value beyond individual field descriptions.

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?

Description opens with specific verb '新建笔记' (create new note) and immediately distinguishes from sibling tool `update_note` via the explicit constraint '⚠️ 仅支持新建，不支持编辑已有笔记' (only supports creating new, not editing existing). Clear scope boundary.

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?

Explicitly states when NOT to use (editing) and provides complete workflows referencing sibling tools: specifies prerequisite `upload_image` for image notes, and mentions `get_note_task_progress` for querying async link processing. Clear alternative paths documented.

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