zero_write_note

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It reveals one behavioral rule (atomic/entity types require evidence ≥ 1) but omits critical traits like idempotency, whether updates are allowed, return behavior, or permissions. Transparency is insufficient.

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?

Description is a single sentence, making it concise but severely under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters. It is front-loaded with the main action but lacks structure. The brevity detracts from usefulness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It omits parameter details, return format, prerequisites, side effects, and error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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%, and the description only adds meaning for two parameters (type and evidence) by stating the evidence requirement. Other parameters (title, body, tags, links, domain, aliases, privacy) are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

Description clearly states the tool writes a permanent note to a specific location (10_Notes) with a constraint for atomic/entity types. The verb 'write' and resource 'note' are specific, and the constraint distinguishes it from sibling tools like zero_update_note or zero_capture.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes zero_update_note, the description does not indicate that this tool is for creation only or provide scenarios. Implied usage is weak.

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