Atomically create or overwrite a note in a vault. Pass expected_hash for safe overwrites; omit it only when creating a new note.
Atomically create or overwrite a note. Requires write_enabled=true. Use expected_hash for safe overwrites (read the note first, pass its hash). Omit expected_hash only when creating a new note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| vault | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| frontmatter | No | ||
| expected_hash | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0-rc.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds what annotations cannot, namely atomicity and the write_enabled=true permission gate. It stops short of 5 because it does not say what happens to existing frontmatter or content on overwrite.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with each remaining sentence carrying a distinct rule (permission gate, safe-overwrite pattern, create case). No filler.
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 destructive write tool with no output schema, it covers the critical operational facts: permission requirement, atomicity, and hash-based concurrency safety, while annotations cover the destructive/idempotency profile. The gap is the undocumented frontmatter and client_id parameters and their effect on overwrite.
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% for 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for expected_hash (read the note, pass its hash) and implies content/path/vault usage, but leaves frontmatter and client_id completely unexplained.
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 ('Atomically create or overwrite a note'), which clearly separates it from read_note, delete_note and update_frontmatter. It does not explicitly name a sibling or a boundary case, so it stops short of the top band.
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?
Gives an explicit prerequisite (write_enabled=true) and a precise when/when-not rule for the risky mode: use expected_hash for overwrites by reading first, omit it only when creating a new note. An agent can pick the correct call pattern without inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.