create_revision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not disclose whether the note itself is modified, whether prior revisions are preserved or overwritten, what content the snapshot captures, or what the tool returns. For a mutation-type tool this is a meaningful transparency gap.

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?

A single 10-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and no structured content is redundantly repeated.

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 (1 documented parameter, no output schema, no annotations), so the description is adequate for basic selection. However, it omits what happens after the call — the return value and how revisions are later accessed (notably, no sibling tool for listing/retrieving revisions exists), which leaves some invocation uncertainty.

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%: the schema already documents noteId as 'ID of the note to create a revision snapshot for,' which mirrors the tool description. The description adds only marginal meaning (implying the note must already exist to snapshot), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('revision snapshot of a note's current content'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_note and update_note. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly-named create_backup sibling.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent gets no hint about whether to snapshot before edits, how this relates to update_note/patch_note workflows, or what distinguishes a revision from create_backup. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.

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