Write Note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: contract enforcement driven by vault profile and refusal of secret-looking content unless allow_secrets=True. However, it omits critical mutation semantics for a write tool – whether an existing note is overwritten or merged, and what happens when the contract check fails.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the guardrail immediately after. The parenthetical contract-field list is dense but each clause carries information; no filler.

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 not be explained. But for a mutation tool with no annotations, zero schema coverage on 5 params and a nested frontmatter object, the description leaves path semantics and overwrite behavior unstated – adequate, not complete.

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% across 5 parameters, including a free-form nested frontmatter object. The description explains allow_secrets and lists contract fields (id, type, area, status, confidence, source) but says nothing about relative_path, vault, or body, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Create or update a note.' It does not name or differentiate itself from close siblings such as update_note_frontmatter or upsert_node, so an agent still has to infer which of the several note/node writers is correct.

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?

It states conditional behavior (contract enforced only when the vault profile requires it) but gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives like update_note_frontmatter or upsert_node. Nothing tells the agent which sibling to prefer for a frontmatter-only edit versus a full note write.

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