create_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context by mentioning content_format=1 and clarifying that folder_name is for the IMA-side folder, not the knowledge base folder. It also signals the follow-up workflow with add_note_to_knowledge_base. However, it omits details about return values, error conditions, or permanence, which a create operation might warrant. Still, it adds value beyond the schema.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It then adds key details about content format, the next-step relationship, and folder semantics. Every sentence carries essential information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 two-parameter create tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter meaning, and workflow with a sibling tool. It lacks an explicit mention of the return value or response format, which would be useful since no output schema exists. However, given the tool's simplicity and the absence of nested objects, it is reasonably complete. A score of 5 would require explicit return/error handling details.

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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter semantics: it repeats the Markdown support already in the schema and echoes the folder distinction. The only unique detail is content_format=1, but that's not a parameter property. Therefore, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Create an IMA note' (创建一篇 IMA 笔记) with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_note_to_knowledge_base by explaining the note can be added to a knowledge base after creation, clarifying its role as the creation step.

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 workflow guidance: 'After creation, you can add the note to a knowledge base via add_note_to_knowledge_base.' This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (to create) and when to use the alternative (to add). It also clarifies folder_name applies to IMA notes, not knowledge base folders, preventing misuse. However, it doesn't enumerate all sibling tools or state explicit exclusions, so a 4 rather than 5.

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