create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds one useful detail ('safe filename derived from its title'), but does not mention other behaviors such as handling of duplicate titles, whether content is required, or error conditions.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core action and includes a key detail, making it highly concise and readable.

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 tool with an output schema and two parameters, the description covers the main purpose and a notable behavior. It does not explicitly guide against using append_to_note, but the name and description imply the difference. Missing details like overwrite behavior are not critical for basic 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?

The description explains the role of 'title' in filename generation, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about the 'content' parameter, leaving its purpose to schema inference. Given the 0% formal schema description coverage, partial compensation is acceptable.

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 tool creates a Markdown note, with a specific detail about filename derivation from the title. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (list, read, search, append) by being the creation operation.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like append_to_note, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. It relies solely on the name and implied purpose.

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