create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the return value ('Success message with note ID') but does not disclose what happens if a note with the same title already exists, whether creation overwrites or errors, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section clearly maps each parameter, and the Returns section provides output expectations. Every sentence is useful, with no padding or redundancy.

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 create operation with two string parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its parameters, and its return value. The presence of an output schema is noted but the description already includes the return info. Minor gaps like duplicate handling prevent a 5, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema provides only type 'string' with no descriptions, so the description carries the burden. It clearly defines 'title' as the title and 'body' as the content/body, which adds meaning beyond the schema. It does not include potential constraints (e.g., max length), but the basics are well-covered.

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 in Claude Diary folder'. The verb 'create' and resource 'note' are specific, and the phrase 'Claude Diary folder' adds context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_to_note, which modifies an existing note, and get_note/get_notes_list, which retrieve notes.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool ('Create a new note'), and the contrast with sibling names (append, get) implies it is for new records rather than modifications or reads. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where other tools would be preferred, which would make it a 5.

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