create_daily_note

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the important behavioral detail that the tool fails if a daily note already exists, which is not visible in the annotations or schema. It does not disclose side effects beyond creation, but the failure condition is the most decision-relevant behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action, date scope, and failure condition are all front-loaded and each sentence 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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is minimal but covers the most critical behavior (creation and failure condition). It is missing guidance on parameter semantics and return behavior, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can likely call it correctly with the schema and this description.

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 carries the burden for parameter meaning, but it only explains 'date' implicitly ('for today or a given date'). It does not explain what 'content' or 'template_path' do, nor how they interact (e.g., whether template_path is used when content is null). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description adds some meaning for date but leaves the other two parameters unexplained.

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 ('Create') and resource ('daily note'), and adds a scoping detail ('for today or a given date') plus a key constraint ('Fails if one exists'). It is clear enough to distinguish from create_note, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative.

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 when to use it: when you want a daily note and one does not already exist. The failure condition ('Fails if one exists') gives a clear exclusion signal, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer create_note, get_daily_note, or append_to_note instead.

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