create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: it refuses to overwrite and returns a relative path. It does not clarify what happens on overwrite refusal (error vs silent no-op) or whether directories are created, but the core safety behavior is explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action and critical overwrite behavior. The kind and area_or_path guidance is formatted clearly, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the key invocation details: valid kinds, area requirement, overwrite behavior, and return value. It doesn't explain how uniqueness/overwrite is determined (path vs title) or error behavior, but the essential usage contract is present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly defines the 'kind' enum values and explains when 'area_or_path' is required versus optional. Title and content are self-explanatory by name, but the description omits any specifics about content format or path syntax.

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 the tool creates a new note, identifies supported kinds, and notes it refuses to overwrite. This distinguishes it from update (modification) and append (adding to existing), though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided. The description implies creation use cases via the kind list but does not mention alternatives like append_fleeting for existing fleeting notes or update_note for modifications, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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