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 of disclosing behavioral context. It mentions that content can be markdown or HTML, but does not disclose what the tool returns, whether permissions are required, or other side effects of creating a note. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without any annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the content format detail is relevant and concise.

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 schema is detailed and fully describes the parameters, defaults, enums, and attributes, so the agent has enough to construct a valid call. However, without an output schema, the description should have indicated what the tool returns (e.g., created note ID) to support chaining with sibling tools. This missing return-value context prevents a higher score.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that content can be markdown or HTML via contentFormat, which the schema also covers.

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 and resource: 'Create a new note in Trilium.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like update_note, patch_note, get_note, and delete_note by stating that it creates a new note.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: when creating a new note. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like update_note/patch_note for existing notes, so it stops short of the highest level of guidance.

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