create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does real work: it discloses that the first line is rendered as the title, that the rest becomes body, and that only plain text is accepted. It omits failure/idempotency behavior and what the call returns, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Each sentence supplies distinct information (purpose, text semantics, folder semantics, format limit).

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?

For a simple 2-parameter creation tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, and format constraints adequately. It could note the return value or behavior on an unknown folder, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for both parameters: 'folder' is explained as a name-or-id with empty meaning the default Notes folder, and 'text' is mapped to title/body structure. Only minor gaps (e.g., length/format limits) remain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an Apple Note'), and the resource noun unambiguously separates it from the other create_* siblings (create_event, create_reminder, create_calendar). An agent knows immediately what this tool produces.

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 when to invoke it (to make a new note) but never says when not to use it or names alternatives such as move_note/delete_note. With no explicit routing guidance, this is only implied usage.

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