Write

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the create fails atomically on a name conflict rather than overwriting, which is the key operational trait here.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the failure condition and fallback. No filler, no restated title.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 14% schema coverage, the description leaves several meaningful parameters (tags, type, status, source) entirely undocumented, which is a notable gap.

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 only 14% — only 'folder' is annotated (with path examples) — while name, body, tags, type, source and status carry no documented meaning anywhere. The description does not compensate, adding no explanation of defaults ('type' defaults to 'note', 'status' to 'active') or what a source reference is.

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 ('Create a new note') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by naming the alternative ('use patch instead'). An agent can route between write and patch without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not condition (a note with that name already exists) and names the correct alternative (patch). It does not cover other adjacent siblings like capture or archive, but the primary branching decision is spelled out clearly.

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