remnote_create_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool creates a note but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and lists optional parameters without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (e.g., note ID, success confirmation), error handling, or behavioral nuances like whether duplicate titles are allowed. Given the complexity of a 4-parameter mutation, more context is needed.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by listing optional parameters (content, parent, tags) but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as how parentId relates to RemNote structure or tag formatting.

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') and resource ('in RemNote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remnote_update_note' by specifying creation rather than modification, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives like 'remnote_append_journal'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remnote_update_note' for modifying existing notes or 'remnote_append_journal' for journal-specific operations. It mentions optional parameters but gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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