slipbox_create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses key traits: atomicity ('exactly one idea'), content preservation ('Store content exactly as the user provided it. Do NOT rewrite'), and note-type-specific requirements (literature requires references or use fleeting). It stops short of describing error/duplicate behavior, but the disclosed rules are substantial and useful.

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 relatively long but well-organized with clear sections: intro, note types, authoring, best practices, and Args. Every section adds substantive value, and the front-loaded purpose makes the tool's role clear immediately. Slight verbosity exists (e.g., note type bullet details), but it is structured and scannable.

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's complexity (5 params, multiple note types with special rules) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary usage aspects: note type definitions, references requirement, authoring constraints, best practices, and parameter documentation. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's 'Args:' section explains every parameter with meaning, defaults, and format examples (e.g., tags: 'poetry,revision,craft'). This fully compensates for schema gaps and adds rich detail that the raw schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new atomic Zettelkasten note.' It clearly distinguishes creation from sibling tools by explicitly referencing slipbox_create_link and slipbox_search_notes and by outlining note-type semantics. This is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 strong when-to-use guidance: 'Search first (slipbox_search_notes) to avoid duplicating existing notes' and 'After creating, immediately link to related notes using slipbox_create_link.' It also explains conditional usage for note types (e.g., using 'fleeting' as a staging type when references are missing), which helps the agent choose the correct type of creation.

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