create_note

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

The description adds a key behavioral trait not present in the annotations: the operation fails on an existing note unless overwrite=true. This goes beyond the minimal openWorldHint annotation and gives the agent actionable knowledge about idempotency and mutation behavior. It does not say what happens on success, but for a create operation this is a useful level of disclosure.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes meaning, balancing the main verb with the critical overwrite caveat.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits any mention of return value (no output schema exists) and side effects like directory creation or content format validation. However, it does capture the most important complexity (overwrite behavior) and the openWorldHint annotation adds a minor contextual signal. Overall it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains the overwrite parameter (the most non-obvious one), but it does not elaborate on path, vault, or content beyond their names. Those names are fairly intuitive, but the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 Markdown note') and the resource (a Markdown note). It also includes a critical distinguishing behavior (fails if the note exists unless overwrite is true), which sets it apart from siblings like update_note and delete_note. The verb+resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 that this tool is for creating new notes and that overwriting requires explicit opt-in via the overwrite parameter, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer another tool (e.g., update_note for existing notes). The usage context is clear but exclusions are only implied, not stated.

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