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 and covers side effects and failure modes thoroughly: write-permission requirements, symlink refusal on the final path component, atomic no-clobber publication, and the staging-fallback error naming VAULT_ALLOW_NAMED_STAGING_FALLBACK. An agent can accurately predict the tool's behavior.

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 purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the content is organized into clear topical paragraphs. It is longer than strictly necessary due to detailed staging and fallback explanations, but those details are behaviorally relevant and no sentence is clearly wasted.

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 description covers permissions, path semantics, symlink behavior, atomic no-clobber semantics, and direction to get_vault_guide for vault conventions — quite complete for a two-parameter tool. It does not describe the success response or the exact behavior when the destination file already exists, though an output schema may cover the former.

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, but the Args section fully compensates. Path gets vault-relative semantics, a concrete example, and the behavior of appending .md; content gets its markdown and frontmatter scope. Both required parameters are meaningfully explained.

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 'Create a new markdown note in the Obsidian vault', a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly indicates creation rather than modification through the word 'new' and the no-clobber guarantee, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with sibling tools like edit_note or write_file, leaving some differentiation to inference.

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 clearly states the permission prerequisite ('readwrite' API key or OAuth scope) and points to get_vault_guide for vault-specific conventions, providing solid operating context. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer this tool over edit_note or write_file, though the no-clobber statement implicitly rules out updating existing files.

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