create_note

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals the result shape (returns note with generated id), a critical error condition (case-insensitive title collision), and a routing fallback. This adds real behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, the most important return behavior up front, followed by the duplicate-title warning and alternative. Each sentence adds unique operational value; there is no padding.

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?

With only two parameters, one required, and a full output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what it returns, key constraints, and the correct sibling for modification. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds only the case-insensitive uniqueness nuance beyond the schema's existing 'Must be unique' note. That is small extra value, consistent with the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a new note') and clearly states the distinguishing behavior: returning the generated id for later calls. It also contrasts with update_note by pointing out that duplicate titles are errors, making the tool's role unmistakable among its siblings.

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 explicitly names when not to use this tool ('if the user wants to change an existing note, use update_note') and clearly flags the uniqueness constraint that should silence spurious create attempts. This gives the agent direct decision support.

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