save_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 that content is appended (not overwritten), that a timestamp is added automatically, that the path is relative to the server's working directory, and the slug character rules. It does not say whether missing directories/files are created, whether slugs are validated or rejected, or what happens on write failure.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and destination. The path-relative caveat and slug constraint each earn their place as format details the schema lacks.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the essential unknowns for a two-parameter write: destination path, append semantics, timestamping, and slug format. Directory-creation and error behavior are the only meaningful omissions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for slug: lowercase letters, digits, hyphens, with a concrete example ('demo-lamp'). The text parameter is only implicitly characterized as the note body (timestamp added separately).

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'append a timestamped note to harald-work/<slug>/notes.md' tells an agent exactly what happens and to what file. It does not name the sibling it complements (read_notes), but the write/read pairing is unambiguous from the verb and target path.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and never references read_notes or any alternative. An agent must infer that this is the write counterpart of read_notes purely from the tool name.

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