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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool creates a note and returns an ID, but omits critical details: whether this requires authentication, if there are rate limits, what happens on failure, or if the note is saved immediately. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new note') and includes the key outcome ('return its ID'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place by specifying the tool's purpose and result.

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 the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or what the returned ID can be used for. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.

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 fully documents the three parameters (title, text, tags). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter semantics.

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 action ('Create a new note') and the resource ('in Bear'), with a specific outcome ('return its ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_text' or 'search_notes' by focusing on creation rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'set_bear_token' is unrelated).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_text' (which might append to existing notes) or 'search_notes' (for finding notes). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication via 'set_bear_token') or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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