Create a new evidence note in one configured directory without overwriting existing files, capturing summary, decision, evidence, and next actions.
Create a new evidence note in one configured directory; never overwrite.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| decision | Yes | ||
| evidence | Yes | ||
| next_actions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool never overwrites existing notes, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explain what happens on duplicate slugs, permission requirements, or the return value, missing important details for a creation 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and a critical guarantee. No wasted words; it is appropriately concise.
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 tool with eight parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits field meanings, on-conflict behavior (beyond 'never overwrite'), and return details, leaving agents without enough context to invoke it reliably. Sibling tool names help, but the description itself under-delivers.
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?
The schema has zero coverage, and the description does not mention any of the eight parameters (e.g., slug, summary, decision, next_actions). The agent gets no additional semantic context for required fields, making it difficult to construct valid inputs.
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 action ('Create a new evidence note') and resource, and adds a distinguishing guarantee ('never overwrite'). This separates it from siblings that read, search, or append lessons, providing a specific and unambiguous purpose.
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 creation context via 'Create a new,' which distinguishes it from read/search/append siblings, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.