Create a note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the type→folder placement behavior (note→notes/, project→projects/, etc.), which is genuine behavioral context. But it is silent on overwrite semantics, what happens when a note already exists at the path, and permission/error behavior, which matters for a create tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and the type mapping inline. The parenthetical folder list is dense but earns its place; nothing redundant.

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?

A 6-parameter create tool with a nested frontmatter object and no output schema needs the description to cover side effects and edge cases. The type routing is well covered and the schema handles parameter detail, but the destructive 'overwrite' path and existence/error behavior are entirely unaddressed.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare enum by mapping each type value to its destination folder. It adds nothing for body, tags, overwrite, or frontmatter beyond the schema text.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Create a markdown note') and richly specifies the type parameter's folder routing, which makes the resource concrete. It does not, however, distinguish this from siblings like capture, append_note, or daily_note, so an agent gets no routing signal from the purpose text itself.

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 only guidance is content-style ('use [[wikilinks]]... link generously'), not tool-selection guidance. It never says when to use create_note versus capture, append_note, or replace_note_body, nor any preconditions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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