silica_write_note

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

With annotations only declaring the safety profile, the description adds the critical details: writes are atomic, a lint pass runs afterward and reports structural violations and unresolved wikilinks, overwrites are guarded by version/create_only checks, and rollback is git with no internal journal. That is substantial context beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then failure conditions, then the recovery model. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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 guarded write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete. The only residual ambiguity is whether lint results are returned by this call or require a separate invocation, since `lint` in backticks reads like another tool.

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 100%, so expect_version, create_only, body decoding, and frontmatter are already documented. The description reinforces the refusal semantics of expect_version and create_only but adds no format or syntax detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Write one note atomically') and immediately adds the post-write lint behavior. This cleanly separates it from read-only siblings (silica_read, silica_search, silica_files), none of which mutate notes.

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 'refuses to overwrite when expect_version does not match or when create_only is set and the file exists' clause tells the agent exactly when the call will fail and therefore which mode to pick for new vs. existing notes. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, but no write sibling exists to route to.

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