write_note_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the tool writes (mutates), conditionally preserves frontmatter, returns a diff and frontmatter_preserved flag, and that dry_run previews without writing. This covers the essential behavioral traits an agent needs to know.

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?

Three compact sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, frontmatter behavior, and dry_run workflow. No redundancy, and the most important operational detail (dry_run preview) is saved for last as an actionable instruction.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits three parameters (vault, create_only, expected_revision) and doesn't address error conditions or concurrency. For a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a meaningful gap that could lead to misuse.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains content (frontmatter preservation), path (target), and dry_run (preview). However, it leaves vault, create_only, and expected_revision unexplained — these are critical for correct invocation (selecting vault, enforcing create-only semantics, and optimistic concurrency).

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?

States a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('note'), and clarifies 'create or overwrite'. This clearly distinguishes it from partial-edit siblings like patch_note_tool and append_to_note_tool without needing explicit naming.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: mentions READ_ONLY/WRITE_PATHS constraints, explains dry_run preview flow ('previews... without writing anything — check it, then call again'), and advises checking the returned frontmatter_preserved flag. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over patch/append tools, relying on implied full-content replacement.

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