create_note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the storage behavior (file paths based on category), which is useful. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether the tool overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid filenames), or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by bullet points that efficiently detail storage rules. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity (3 parameters with 0% schema coverage), the description is partially complete. It covers the creation action and storage logic but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, idempotency) and doesn't fully explain all parameters, leaving room for improvement in guiding the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for the 'category' parameter by explaining how it affects storage paths ('/Notes/<category>/<filename>' vs '/Notes/<filename>'), which clarifies its optional nature and impact. However, it doesn't explain 'filename' or 'content' parameters beyond what the schema titles imply, leaving some semantics uncovered.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new Markdown (.md) note'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'edit_note' or 'read_note' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ensure_notes_folder_exists' which might be a prerequisite, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage through the storage path rules (with/without category), suggesting when to provide a category parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit_note' for updates or 'create_category' for category management, and doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing 'ensure_notes_folder_exists' first).

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