write_note

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions atomicity, write_enabled requirement, and safe overwrite mechanism via expected_hash. However, it does not describe error conditions, return values, or side effects, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise—two sentences—with no extraneous information. It front-loads the tool's purpose and key usage notes, making it easy to scan.

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 six parameters (three required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential behavioral context (atomicity, expected_hash) but omits details for four parameters and return value, leaving the tool partially underspecified.

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%, so the description must compensate. Only expected_hash is explained; vault, path, content, frontmatter, and client_id are not described, leaving significant gaps for correct parameter usage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Atomically create or overwrite a note.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_note and read_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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: requires write_enabled=true, use expected_hash for safe overwrites, omit expected_hash only for new notes. This distinguishes from alternatives and sets prerequisites.

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