tp_create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action without mentioning side effects, permission requirements (e.g., coach account for athlete parameter), or any implications of creating a note. No additional behavior is disclosed beyond the fundamental action.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. There is no wasted wording or redundant structure. However, it is arguably too brief to fully serve its purpose, which slightly reduces the score from a perfect conciseness rating.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is expected to provide more context. It does not explain what constitutes a calendar note, how it differs from events, or what the response will look like. Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, special athlete field), the description is incomplete.

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 50%, and the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain the `title` and `description` fields, nor does it clarify the `date` format beyond what the schema provides. Since the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, it offers minimal parameter-level value.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('calendar note'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling note tools like tp_get_note/tp_update_note and other create tools such as tp_create_workout/tp_create_event. The resource is specific enough to convey the tool's function.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus creating an event, availability, or updating an existing note. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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