Create note

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

Annotations already signal that this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those hints: each line becomes its own paragraph and the title is rendered as a heading. This tells the agent how content will be transformed, which is valuable for predicting the tool's effect.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, and the formatting behavior is stated immediately in the second sentence. Every part of the description 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?

For a simple create operation with three well-documented parameters and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It covers the essential creation behavior and formatting semantics, and the schema handles parameter defaults. A minor gap is the absence of any statement about return value or behavior when the target folder does not exist, but these are not critical for selecting or invoking the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the title is rendered as a heading, which is not present in the title parameter description. It also reinforces the body line-to-paragraph behavior, though folder semantics are left entirely to 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new note from a plain-text body.' It also distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like append_to_note, update_note, and delete_note by emphasizing 'new note' and describing the input format. The line-to-paragraph and title-heading details further clarify what this tool uniquely does.

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 phrase 'Create a new note' implicitly signals when to use this tool, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives such as append_to_note for existing notes or update_note for modifying notes. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and there are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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