create_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well. It discloses atomicity (one idea per note), template frontmatter enforcement, and the failure condition on duplicates. It also mentions the wiki-link convention for related notes, making the expected behavior clear.

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 sentences, all valuable and front-loaded with the primary action. No filler, and the structure flows logically from purpose to usage to failure behavior.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, failure, and linking convention, which is solid for a create tool. However, it omits details about tags/source and the exact frontmatter template, leaving some spec ambiguity that could matter for a note-taking tool with a template.

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 adds meaning around content (wiki-links) and frontmatter enforcement, but does not explain the 'tags' or 'source' parameters, which are left to names alone. This partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool creates an atomic idea note in a specific directory, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the creation operation from sibling modification tools (edit, update, rename) by emphasizing the 'create' semantics and the constraint that it fails if a note exists.

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 explicitly says to use it for durable ideas/insights, advises searching first to avoid duplicates (thereby pointing to the search tool as an alternative), and notes that it fails if the note already exists, implying that edit/update are for existing notes.

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