Write Note

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

The description warns 'replaces the entire file', which is a destructive overwrite behavior, while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction: an agent relying on annotations could wrongly assume the operation is non-destructive. Despite useful disclosures like immediate index updates, the contradiction forces a score of 1.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, followed by clearly separated markdown and attachment branches. The warning and index-update note are valuable rather than filler. It is slightly long but every section earns its place.

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?

The description covers the two main usage modes, the overwrite warning, index behavior, automatic parent directory creation, and the concurrency option via if_match. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required. A small gap is that it does not describe failure behavior when if_match conflicts, but overall the description is complete enough for successful invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by grouping parameters by file type: content/frontmatter for .md files, content_base64 for attachments, and explicitly noting that content and frontmatter are ignored for attachments. It also adds the base64 token-cost warning, which is helpful context not present in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create or overwrite a document or attachment.' It clearly separates markdown documents from binary attachments and explicitly names the sibling alternative 'edit' for targeted changes, so an agent can distinguish write from edit/append/delete without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use 'edit' for targeted changes instead of write, and do not call 'reindex' afterward because the search index updates immediately. It also states that parent directories are created automatically, removing any need for a separate mkdir step.

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