create_note_type

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

Without annotations, the description adds value by explaining template format and optional features (css, is_cloze). However, it omits details on side effects (e.g., duplicate model_name behavior, permissions, reversibility).

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?

Three sentences: purpose, field explanation, template and optional parameters. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema (not provided), the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. Missing details like error conditions or uniqueness constraints, but sufficient for a creation tool with output schema.

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 carries the burden. It explains 'fields' as ordered names, 'card_templates' as dicts with HTML placeholders, and 'is_cloze' for cloze type. 'model_name' could use more detail, but overall compensates well.

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 clearly states 'Create a new note type' with specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like note_type_field_add by focusing on creation. The explanation of fields and card_templates adds precision.

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 implies use when a new note type is needed but does not specify when not to use or compare to alternatives. No prerequisites or constraints are mentioned, leaving usage context vague.

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